73 year old man beaten to death by teenagers....he shouldn't have a gun though....right?

As mentioned a thousand times, women rarely carry a gun against rape. And most of the gun defence stories were debunked.


a few quick stories....that weren't debunked...

And yes...if a woman doesn't have a gun, she can't use a gun she doesn't have to stop a rape....that is why more and more American women are buying and carrying guns......

West Virginia mass shooting stopped...

People like this West Virginia woman who stopped what could have become a mass shooting just a day after Uvalde.

Police said a woman who was lawfully carrying a pistol shot and killed a man who began shooting at a crowd of people Wednesday night in Charleston.
Dennis Butler was killed after allegedly shooting at dozens of people attending a graduation party Wednesday near the Vista View Apartment complex. No injuries were reported from those at the party.
Investigators said Butler was warned about speeding in the area with children present before he left. He later returned with an AR-15-style firearm and began firing into the crowd before he was shot and killed.
“Instead of running from the threat, she engaged with the threat and saved several lives last night,” Charleston Police Department Chief of Detectives Tony Hazelett said.
Officers did not go into detail, but said Butler did have an extensive criminal history.


West Virginia armed citizen stops potential mass shooting
=======




http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016...-gun-violence-awareness-day.html?intcmp=hpbt4
Lancaster Woman Scares Off Bat-Wielding Attackers By Pulling Gun On Them

LANCASTER, Ohio - It happened along a walking path in Lancaster.

Dinah Burns is licensed to carry a concealed gun, but she'd only recently started taking her weapon while walking her dog.

Based on what happened, it looks like she'll make a point of carrying from now on.

"I think if they'd gotten any closer, I probably would have fired,” said Burns.

It was Monday when Burns was on a footpath near Sanderson Elementary School.

"Two gentlemen came out of the woods, one holding a baseball bat, and said 'You're coming with us'."

The men weren't deterred by Dinah's dog Gracie.

"I said, 'Well, what do you want?,' and as I was saying that I reached in to my pocket and slipped my gun out, slipped the safety off as I pulled it out. As I was doing that the other gentleman came toward me and raised the baseball bat. And, I pointed the gun at them and said, 'I have this and I'm not afraid to use it.'"

The men took off and so far have eluded police. Dinah posted about the incident on Facebook to alert friends and neighbors, to criticism by some.

"Most of the males' opinion was, 'Why didn't you shoot them?'"

Easy to second-guess a decision made under pressure, based on her concealed carry training, and police agree.

"To get out of a situation, back out, get out of it as much as you can without having to discharge your firearm."

"I will say it's a good thing to go from a place of danger to a place of safety, however you get that done,” said Sgt. Matt Chambers, Lancaster Police.

"Very thankful that it turned out the way it did, and hope it doesn't happen again, but I will be prepared."
========
What I want you to know on Gun Violence Awareness Day | Fox News

What I want you to know on Gun Violence Awareness Day

I correctly listened to my instincts; I had a feeling that my life was in danger in that elevator and prepared myself mentally for what was potentially to come.

I ran to my car in an attempt to escape and, before I could even get my entire body in my car, I was tackled by my attacker.

This man quickly overpowered me, stabbed at me with a knife, clamped his hand over my mouth multiple times, and repeatedly tried forcing me in the passenger seat of my car while telling me, “We’re going.”

The entire time this was happening, a rusted, serrated knife was being stabbed towards my abdomen and held at my face.

I had been hit in the face, thrown over my driver’s side console, and had rips in my tights from his hands trying to force my legs up and over into the passenger seat.


There are some individuals that think gun owners are “trigger happy” and wanting to pull their weapons out at the first opportunity. There is nothing further from the truth.

The night I was attacked, I fought like hell for my life before reaching for my gun. I kicked, I screamed, I had all ten fingernails ripped off and bloodied from scratching and trying to fight my way out of a literal life and death situation.

Ultimately, I accessed my gun, shot my attacker multiple times, and saved my life. He will be spending years in prison for what he did to me.

Using a gun in self-protection is not a decision one makes lightly; in fact, I never dreamed that I would be forced into a situation where I would have to do so. However, I also never imagined such evil existing in the world so that I would be powerless, wounded, on my back and unable to physically force my attacker off of me.

I owned a gun and had been trained on how to use it. I know how to safely carry and that a gun is a serious and significant weapon; it is not to be used carelessly. Naysayers and people with opposing opinions may try to undermine my situation with hypotheticals. I cannot answer these questions. All I can do is tell the facts of my story and the true account of how I saved my own life.

What I want you to know on Gun Awareness Day is that a gun in the hands of a potential victim is not improperly placed; it can be the only thing keeping her from being brutally raped and murdered.

Without my gun, I would not be alive today.


Guns are not the problem in America; men like my attacker -- who are willing to violently change one person’s life for no reason except for pure evil – are the problem.

Be safe at all times. Be aware of your surroundings. Trust your instincts. Always be able to protect yourself. Refuse to be a victim, and instead be a fighter and a survivor. Live to tell your tale and make a criminal regret the day he chose you as a “soft target.” My gun saved my life, and one could save yours too.
===============

Waking up to an armed intruder in your house would be any home owner’s worst nightmare. If you’re a single mother with two young kids in the house, finding a man wielding a machete in your bedroom closet immediately kicks you into “momma bear” mode.

That’s what happened to a California woman who woke up to the sound of a man rummaging through her walk-in closet. The thief — Ocean Burger (his name, not a restaurant) — was armed with a number of knives and a machete when the un-named woman grabbed a handgun and confronted him.

From ksbw.com . . .


[Investigators] say Burger ignored orders to leave and when the homeowner fired several warning shots he allegedly advanced towards her, that’s when the mother fired at the accused burglar hitting him in the leg. And California law may be on her side.

Warning shots are never a good idea and could even put you in legal jeopardy in many jurisdictions. In this case, they not only wasted perfectly good (and expensive) ammunition, but probably led Burger to believe she wasn’t serious about actually shooting him.

After advancing on the woman, the round in his leg apparently convinced Burger that he was wrong.

The good news is California actually has a castle doctrine law on the books. The woman had no duty to retreat and was legally justified in using deadly force to defend herself and her children.

“There is a presumption that favors the homeowner they’re presumed that the person is in imminent fear of either death or great bodily injury,” said Ellen Campos, assistant district attorney for San Benito county. …

California Woman Shoots Machete-Wielding Burglar She Found in Her Closet - The Truth About Guns

=============
 
They weren't debunked......and women were the smallest group of Americans to own and carry guns....that is changing...especially as the democrat party violent crime wave continues....
Most were debunked.

Most women in America don't carry guns. You feel the gun is the answer to everything. That's a fucked up state of mind.
 
Most were debunked.

Most women in America don't carry guns. You feel the gun is the answer to everything. That's a fucked up state of mind.


And that is a lie...you haven't debunked anything.......

Most women don't carry guns......and they should.......as the examples in my post #21 show...and now, women are the biggest growth area in gun ownership...

By the way, you never answered these easy questions....

A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......

Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?

A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?
 
a few quick stories....that weren't debunked...

And yes...if a woman doesn't have a gun, she can't use a gun she doesn't have to stop a rape....that is why more and more American women are buying and carrying guns......

West Virginia mass shooting stopped...

People like this West Virginia woman who stopped what could have become a mass shooting just a day after Uvalde.

Police said a woman who was lawfully carrying a pistol shot and killed a man who began shooting at a crowd of people Wednesday night in Charleston.
Dennis Butler was killed after allegedly shooting at dozens of people attending a graduation party Wednesday near the Vista View Apartment complex. No injuries were reported from those at the party.
Investigators said Butler was warned about speeding in the area with children present before he left. He later returned with an AR-15-style firearm and began firing into the crowd before he was shot and killed.
“Instead of running from the threat, she engaged with the threat and saved several lives last night,” Charleston Police Department Chief of Detectives Tony Hazelett said.
Officers did not go into detail, but said Butler did have an extensive criminal history.


West Virginia armed citizen stops potential mass shooting
=======




What I want you to know on Gun Violence Awareness Day
Lancaster Woman Scares Off Bat-Wielding Attackers By Pulling Gun On Them

LANCASTER, Ohio - It happened along a walking path in Lancaster.

Dinah Burns is licensed to carry a concealed gun, but she'd only recently started taking her weapon while walking her dog.

Based on what happened, it looks like she'll make a point of carrying from now on.

"I think if they'd gotten any closer, I probably would have fired,” said Burns.

It was Monday when Burns was on a footpath near Sanderson Elementary School.

"Two gentlemen came out of the woods, one holding a baseball bat, and said 'You're coming with us'."

The men weren't deterred by Dinah's dog Gracie.

"I said, 'Well, what do you want?,' and as I was saying that I reached in to my pocket and slipped my gun out, slipped the safety off as I pulled it out. As I was doing that the other gentleman came toward me and raised the baseball bat. And, I pointed the gun at them and said, 'I have this and I'm not afraid to use it.'"

The men took off and so far have eluded police. Dinah posted about the incident on Facebook to alert friends and neighbors, to criticism by some.

"Most of the males' opinion was, 'Why didn't you shoot them?'"

Easy to second-guess a decision made under pressure, based on her concealed carry training, and police agree.

"To get out of a situation, back out, get out of it as much as you can without having to discharge your firearm."

"I will say it's a good thing to go from a place of danger to a place of safety, however you get that done,” said Sgt. Matt Chambers, Lancaster Police.

"Very thankful that it turned out the way it did, and hope it doesn't happen again, but I will be prepared."
========
What I want you to know on Gun Violence Awareness Day | Fox News

What I want you to know on Gun Violence Awareness Day

I correctly listened to my instincts; I had a feeling that my life was in danger in that elevator and prepared myself mentally for what was potentially to come.

I ran to my car in an attempt to escape and, before I could even get my entire body in my car, I was tackled by my attacker.

This man quickly overpowered me, stabbed at me with a knife, clamped his hand over my mouth multiple times, and repeatedly tried forcing me in the passenger seat of my car while telling me, “We’re going.”

The entire time this was happening, a rusted, serrated knife was being stabbed towards my abdomen and held at my face.

I had been hit in the face, thrown over my driver’s side console, and had rips in my tights from his hands trying to force my legs up and over into the passenger seat.


There are some individuals that think gun owners are “trigger happy” and wanting to pull their weapons out at the first opportunity. There is nothing further from the truth.

The night I was attacked, I fought like hell for my life before reaching for my gun. I kicked, I screamed, I had all ten fingernails ripped off and bloodied from scratching and trying to fight my way out of a literal life and death situation.

Ultimately, I accessed my gun, shot my attacker multiple times, and saved my life. He will be spending years in prison for what he did to me.

Using a gun in self-protection is not a decision one makes lightly; in fact, I never dreamed that I would be forced into a situation where I would have to do so. However, I also never imagined such evil existing in the world so that I would be powerless, wounded, on my back and unable to physically force my attacker off of me.

I owned a gun and had been trained on how to use it. I know how to safely carry and that a gun is a serious and significant weapon; it is not to be used carelessly. Naysayers and people with opposing opinions may try to undermine my situation with hypotheticals. I cannot answer these questions. All I can do is tell the facts of my story and the true account of how I saved my own life.

What I want you to know on Gun Awareness Day is that a gun in the hands of a potential victim is not improperly placed; it can be the only thing keeping her from being brutally raped and murdered.

Without my gun, I would not be alive today.


Guns are not the problem in America; men like my attacker -- who are willing to violently change one person’s life for no reason except for pure evil – are the problem.

Be safe at all times. Be aware of your surroundings. Trust your instincts. Always be able to protect yourself. Refuse to be a victim, and instead be a fighter and a survivor. Live to tell your tale and make a criminal regret the day he chose you as a “soft target.” My gun saved my life, and one could save yours too.
===============

Waking up to an armed intruder in your house would be any home owner’s worst nightmare. If you’re a single mother with two young kids in the house, finding a man wielding a machete in your bedroom closet immediately kicks you into “momma bear” mode.

That’s what happened to a California woman who woke up to the sound of a man rummaging through her walk-in closet. The thief — Ocean Burger (his name, not a restaurant) — was armed with a number of knives and a machete when the un-named woman grabbed a handgun and confronted him.

From ksbw.com . . .


[Investigators] say Burger ignored orders to leave and when the homeowner fired several warning shots he allegedly advanced towards her, that’s when the mother fired at the accused burglar hitting him in the leg. And California law may be on her side.

Warning shots are never a good idea and could even put you in legal jeopardy in many jurisdictions. In this case, they not only wasted perfectly good (and expensive) ammunition, but probably led Burger to believe she wasn’t serious about actually shooting him.

After advancing on the woman, the round in his leg apparently convinced Burger that he was wrong.

The good news is California actually has a castle doctrine law on the books. The woman had no duty to retreat and was legally justified in using deadly force to defend herself and her children.

“There is a presumption that favors the homeowner they’re presumed that the person is in imminent fear of either death or great bodily injury,” said Ellen Campos, assistant district attorney for San Benito county. …

California Woman Shoots Machete-Wielding Burglar She Found in Her Closet - The Truth About Guns

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

You can pluck a handful out of the air, the Harvard study claimed that after considering the evidence etc.. the majority of the self defence claims were debunked. So by all means copy and paste from your database, but the majority were debunked. The word majority does not mean all, that's why you can find a small handful to satisfy your agenda.
 
You can pluck a handful out of the air, the Harvard study claimed that after considering the evidence etc.. the majority of the self defence claims were debunked. So by all means copy and paste from your database, but the majority were debunked. The word majority does not mean all, that's why you can find a small handful to satisfy your agenda.


The harvard study was a lie.....done by rabid, anti-gun fanatics .......they lied...it is as simple as that.
 
And that is a lie...you haven't debunked anything.......

Most women don't carry guns......and they should.......as the examples in my post #21 show...and now, women are the biggest growth area in gun ownership...

By the way, you never answered these easy questions....

A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......

Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?

A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?
The Harvard study debunked the self defence fallacy.

In America, it's up to a woman to carry a gun against rape, the majority do not bother. As for your hypothetical scenario, it's up to the American women to carry a gun or not.

In your hypothetical scenario, she carries a gun and it jambs, she gets raped. So now what?
 
The harvard study was a lie.....done by rabid, anti-gun fanatics .......they lied...it is as simple as that.
Dismissing a study does not cancel the study. By all means post a link to a University study that claims the majority of self defence claims were valid. No gun nut pamphlet links, or dodgy Right Wing gun nut site.
 
The Harvard study debunked the self defence fallacy.

In America, it's up to a woman to carry a gun against rape, the majority do not bother. As for your hypothetical scenario, it's up to the American women to carry a gun or not.

In your hypothetical scenario, she carries a gun and it jambs, she gets raped. So now what?


No...it didn't..."I debunk thee," is not actual research....
 
Dismissing a study does not cancel the study. By all means post a link to a University study that claims the majority of self defence claims were valid. No gun nut pamphlet links, or dodgy Right Wing gun nut site.

Actual research....


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
 
Dismissing a study does not cancel the study. By all means post a link to a University study that claims the majority of self defence claims were valid. No gun nut pamphlet links, or dodgy Right Wing gun nut site.


You mean like the Centers For Disease Control looking at all the gun research in the country? You mean like that....?



 
Yes.....it did....."it debunked thee", was research.

Just post your university study claiming otherwise.

And what about the gun jamming and thus still being raped?


The gun jamming? How about she doesn't have a gun and is raped........you moron....

Again...answer these questions...

A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......

Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?

A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?
 
Yes.....it did....."it debunked thee", was research.

Just post your university study claiming otherwise.

And what about the gun jamming and thus still being raped?


David Hemenway is your source......so no, it wasn't research it was activism...
 
Yes.....it did....."it debunked thee", was research.

Just post your university study claiming otherwise.

And what about the gun jamming and thus still being raped?


I just posted several stories of women who were violently attacked who used guns to stop the attack.......you have nothing.
 
Yes.....it did....."it debunked thee", was research.

Just post your university study claiming otherwise.

And what about the gun jamming and thus still being raped?


Here....

One moment, please...

Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997
The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)
The Concealed‐Handgun Debate, John R. Lott, Jr., Journal of Legal Studies, January 1998
Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998
The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001
Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001
Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001
Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001
Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001 — see Table 3 on page 679
Confirming More Guns, Less Crime by Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, published in the Stanford Law Review, 2003
Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198
Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004

Abortion and Crime: Unwanted children and out-of-wedlock births, John R. Lott, Jr and John Whitley, October 2006.– page 14, Table 2.
The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001 — page 707, fn. 29
Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns
More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr. — many places in the text.
“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).
“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014
“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014
“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..

“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009
“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013
“On the Choice of Control Variables in the Crime Equation” by Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Volume 72, Issue 5, pages 696–715, October 2010.
“The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws: A Critique of the 2014 Version of Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang,” Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Econ Journal Watch, January 2018: 51-66.
“Do Right to Carry Laws Increase Violent Crime? A Comment on Donohue, Aneja, and Weber,” Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Econ Journal Watch, Volume 16, Number 1, March 2019: 84-96.
More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.
Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

 
Yes.....it did....."it debunked thee", was research.

Just post your university study claiming otherwise.

And what about the gun jamming and thus still being raped?


And more....

Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states.

http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/MoodyMarvellCommentSeptember2008.pdf
======
Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî

Florenz Plassmann*& John Whitley**

Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between approximately $2 billion and $3 billion per year.

Ayres and Donohue have simply misread their own results. Their own most general specification that breaks down the impact of the law on a year-byyear basis shows large crime-reducing benefits. Virtually none of their claims that their county-level hybrid model implies initial significant increases in crime are correct. Overall, the vast majority of their estimatesóbased on data up to 1997óactually demonstrate that right-to-carry laws produce substantial crime-reducing benefits. We show that their models also do an extremely poor job of predicting the changes in crime rates after 1997.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

========
Mark Gius...

ABSTRACT
The purpose of the present study is to determine the relationship between concealed carry permits and state-level crime rates. Using pooled data for the period 2003–2014 and a least squares model with state dummy variables and a time trend, results of the present study suggest that the lagged value of per capita concealed carry permits had a statistically-significant and negative effect on the following crime rates: violent crime, rape, aggravated assault, and auto theft. For all other crimes examined, the number of active concealed carry permits had no statistically significant effects. These results somewhat corroborate the findings of Lott (2000).
The relationship between concealed carry permits and state-level crime rates

=============
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53714acce4b0bb13e3c90e93/t/53c97327e4b00a460e54c128/1405711143901/2009_Hinckley_Journal.pdf#page=63

CONCLUSION It is difficult to make a strong conclusion on the impact concealed carry permits have on crime because there are studies that show contradictory results. However, based on the thorough research conducted by John R. Lott (2003), the evidence from the case study in Dade County, and the research conducted by Kleck and Mertz (1995), it appears that benefits of allowing law abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon outweigh the negatives that guns can bring upon a society. The concerns mentioned above against the policy are not substantiated by the evidence available. The evidence suggests that children are more likely to drown or die in a bicycle accident then they are to die from a loaded unlocked gun. In addition, private gun owners are far less likely to mistakenly kill someone then a police officer is (Lott Jr., 1998). Ultimately the policy appears to be effective in terms of crime reduction.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Maltz.pdf



Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Our results indicated that the direction of effect of the shall-issue law on total SHR homicide rates was similar to that obtained by Lott and Mustard, although the magnitude of the effect was somewhat smaller and was statistically significant at the 7 percent level. In our analysis, which included only counties with a 1977 population of 100,000 or more, laws allowing for concealed weapons were associated with a 6.52 percent reduction in total homicides (Table 2). By comparison, Lott and Mustard found the concealed weapon dummy variable to be associated with a 7.65 percent reduction in total homicides across all counties and a 9 percent reduction in homicides when only large counties (populations of 100,000 or more) were included.43
====
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

COMMENTS

Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî Florenz Plassmann* & John Whitley**


CONCLUSION Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect.

For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year.

The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law.
====

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf

~ The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication1

Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary - Department of Economics, Virginia 23187, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] Thomas B. Marvell Justec Research, Virginia 23185, U.S.A. Paul R. Zimmerman U.S. Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Fasil Alemante College of William and Mary, Virginia 23187, U.S.A.


Abstract: In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive effect on assault.

This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem.

Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder.
====

An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
Mark Gius

Abstract

The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates.

Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states.

It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).
===

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..


Summary and Conclusion

Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime.

However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years

. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime.

Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering.

We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend.

These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted.


The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review


Lott mustard..

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=law_and_economics

Taking apart ayre and donahue one....


“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..


Abstract

“Shall-issue” laws require authorities to issue concealed-weapons permits to anyone who applies, unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of mental illness. A large number of studies indicate that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one study, an influential paper in the Stanford Law Review (2003) by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue iii, implies that these laws lead to an increase in crime. We apply an improved version of the Ayres and Donohue method to a more extensive data set. Our analysis, as well as Ayres and Donohue’s when projected beyond a five-year span, indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the costs of crime. Purists in statistical analysis object with some cause to some of methods employed both by Ayres and Donohue and by us. But our paper upgrades Ayres and Donohue, so, until the next study comes along, our paper should neutralize Ayres and Donohue’s “more guns, more crime” conclusion.
Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review. We acknowledge that, especially in light of the methodological issues of the literature in general, the magnitudes derived from our analysis of crime statistics and the supposed costs of crime might be dwarfed by other considerations in judging the policy issue. Some might contend that allowing individuals to carry a concealed weapon is a moral or cultural bad. Others might contend that greater liberty is a moral or cultural good. All we are confident in saying is that the evidence, such as it is, seems to support the hypothesis that the shall-issue law is generally beneficial with respect to its overall long run effect on crime.


The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws · Econ Journal Watch : shall-issue, crime, handguns, concealed weapons
 
Yes.....it did....."it debunked thee", was research.

Just post your university study claiming otherwise.

And what about the gun jamming and thus still being raped?


And more....

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape

However, most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.
I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance. This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.

First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.

Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

Third, a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.

Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes,"Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion." (Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished "without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."


 
Yes.....it did....."it debunked thee", was research.

Just post your university study claiming otherwise.

And what about the gun jamming and thus still being raped?


And more...

Mother Shoots Intruder 'Multiple Times' to Save Baby - Breitbart

An Indianapolis mother shot a man “multiple times” after he allegedly broke into the home through the window in the baby’s room.

According to CBS 4, family members said that around noon on March 24, the woman “heard the window get busted and she called her husband and said I think somebody’s breaking in the house.”

She grabbed her pistol and ran toward the sound of breaking glass, only to be confronted by the alleged intruder who shot at her, but missed.

The mother then opened fire and struck the suspect “multiple times.” He was transported to a hospital for treatment.

In addition to being armed, a 911 dispatcher said the suspect was “carrying zip ties and a walkie-talkie.”
======
CCW IN ACTION: Armed 22-Year-Old Woman Stops Three Men Attempting To Rob Her In Store Parking Lot – Concealed Nation

OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA — A concealed carrier successfully thwarted the efforts of three men to rob her late at night outside a Dollar Tree. According to police reports from the scene, the woman was exiting the Dollar Tree and heading to her car when she was approached by a man and asked to walk with him. When she refused, he point-blank told her he was going to rob her of her purse.

At this point, according to KOCO, she was presented by two other men backing up the first. She withdrew her concealed carry pistol from her purse and threatened to use it to protect herself. All three men quickly exited and fled the scene.
===========
Woman Scares off Assailant With Stick. Just Kidding, it was a gun.

Just before 7pm on Wednesday night, a 29 year-old woman had gathered up her dog and headed outside to… well, to let her dog do what dogs do.

Upon her first step outside her Minot, North Dakota home, she was hit solidly in the face with a blunt object, knocking her backward down the stairs and into her home.

Her assailant followed her into her home and started to approach her, but the woman had made it to a cabinet where she retrieved a handgun to protect herself and her home.

When confronted with the firearm, the violent intruder and would-be robber/rapist/murderer fled the scene.

The smart, independent, gun-owning woman did not require medical attention, most likely due to the fact that she was able to pull a weapon on her assailant to end the attack.
==============
DGU of the Day: Trotwood Ohio Woman Defeats Three Home Invaders - The Truth About Guns

Three men break into a home in Trotwood, Ohio. [Click here to watch the video.] They’re all armed. It is before 6 am, just three days after Christmas. One of the men is armed with a Tec-9 pistol. He enters last. The other two hold what appear to be conventional semi-auto pistols. They bypass two sleeping children to find the mother. The surveillance video shows the three following the mother after they pistol whipped her in the laundry room.

The man directly behind her has the Tec-9. Presumably holds her at gunpoint while the other two attempt to drag off a safe, in a room with two more children. While the two men are occupied with the safe, the woman breaks free from her captor, accesses a hidden pistol, and starts to fire.

All three run, but the Tec-9 gunman, Azikiwe Presley, is mortally wounded. His body is found 100 yards from the house. From wdtn.com:

“I got my gun and I started shooting and they ran,” the female caller told dispatchers. “They all three had guns, I’m confused … they must not have had bullets because after I pulled the trigger they just took off, instead of firing back. I don’t know if I hit one or not, I don’t see blood anywhere.”

In this case, the recipient of female dedication to protecting innocent life ran a hundred yards and died. It is not uncommon for a man who is fatally shot to run that far, even with a heart/lung shot. As he was likely the one holding the woman at gunpoint, and the closest, greatest, threat with the Tec-9, it is not surprising that he drew the lethal ticket. Whether through choice or happenstance, the mother made the right tactical decision.
=========
Concealed Carrier Holds Burglar At Gunpoint With Her FNX .45

CLEVELAND, TENNESSEE — A woman successfully subdued a would-be burglar outside her home using her FNX .45. The suspect, James Jeffrey Dunn, was allegedly trying to break in through her front door late at night. She got her handgun and confronted the burglar, according to WRCB. Once at the doorway, she yelled through the door for him to stay put and not move. Moments later, she confronted him head-on — handgun drawn and ready to go.

via WRCB

“I tried to order him to stay right where he was at and I pointed the gun at him and I came running off the porch and I came within 10 feet of him and he laid the bicycle down and he crumpled on top of the bicycle,” she says.

She held him at gunpoint until Cleveland Police arrived and arrested Dunn, 35, on charges of aggravated burglary, theft, and burglary of a motor vehicle. Police note that Dunn had an arrest sheet tallying over 40 charges — the most recent being only 6 hours prior to his attempted burglary of this concealed carrier.

“We went over this when we got my concealed carry permit, these types of scenarios. But I had already put that gun up and ever taken it out since, you know?” she says. “Maybe to go the range once.”

When we talk about the new generation of concealed carriers, let’s take a good long look at the realities these people are facing: hardened, career criminals unafraid to bust through the door or do damage to private property and persons. It’s a good thing this woman had the proper training she needed and the right equipment.
======

Armed South Carolina Woman Chases Off Daytime Home Invader - The Truth About Guns

When Ms. Reeves ran across Ralph Goss slithering around inside her home yesterday in the middle of the afternoon, she drew her firearm. Staring down that barrel was enough to change Goss’s mind about whatever it was he had planned.

“I’m one of those people that can go from zero to a hundred in 2.5 seconds and I’m not a nice person normally, but as soon as I got on the phone with the sheriff’s department he was out of sight. The severity of it hit me, and I was in hysterics. I was crying, I was scared, I was very shaken.”

Oconee County deputies tracked Goss down within hours of Ms. Reeves’ call. And surprise! He already had several outstanding warrants for his arrest.
===============

Attacker with knife flees after woman reveals her concealed carry gun, police say

A woman in Illinois was reportedly able to protect herself with her concealed carry firearm after a stranger with a knife jumped into her car.

Police said a woman who was parked near a shopping mall in Moline on Sunday was attacked by a man who fought his way into her car, according to WQAD 8.

During the fight, the man reportedly slashed the woman’s arm with a knife. He then ordered the woman to drive to Rock Island County, a rural area, according to police.


Once the woman stopped the car, she was able to reach her gun, which she had a concealed carry firearm permit for, WQAD 8 reported.

After the attacker saw the weapon, he reportedly ran off and she was able to drive herself to the hospital.

Police subsequently opened an investigation and arrested Floyd R. May, 61.

May was charged with aggravated kidnapping, aggravated battery with a weapon, unlawful use of a weapon by a felon and aggravated assault.
 
Yes.....it did....."it debunked thee", was research.

Just post your university study claiming otherwise.

And what about the gun jamming and thus still being raped?


This is why hemenway is full of shit....from 2018 looking at Hemenway's previous work....

How the Hemenway Surveys Distorted Estimates of Defensive Gun Use Frequency


Gary Kleck
College of Criminology and Criminal Justice Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32306-1273
June 14, 2018
====

The website states that “Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal,” an assertion based entirely on the five judges’ opinions about 35 incidents reported in the 1999 survey. It also unambiguously claims that “guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense,” a claim based on the two Hemenway surveys plus what the website loosely describes as “epidemiological theory.” (Hemenway 2018). The latter amounts to nothing more than a fallacious argument that surveys are bound to yield more “false positive” responses than “false negative” responses, simply because there is more potential for the former than the latter. This bizarre argument is dissected in detail in Kleck (2001, pp. 254-257). As to the 19 other professionally conducted national surveys of probability samples of the U.S. population (Table 1) that unanimously indicate far more DGUs than his two deeply flawed surveys, Hemenway simply ignored them.
Thus, when it came to making propaganda statements about DGUs aimed at large Internet audiences for his website, Hemenway ignored his own caveats. Having superficially satisfied scientific norms for the journal article in which he reported his survey results - stating a few caveats to the effect that his DGU results could not be generalized to DGUs in general - he then dropped the caveats and made public statements that were only true if those caveats were ignored. In short, these caveats were nonoperative, in that they ultimately did not in any way limit the conclusions Hemenway drew from his research.


==========
To summarize, Hemenway and his colleagues managed to create the impression that DGUs were greatly outnumbered by gun crimes by grossly overstating gun crimes and underestimating DGUs. The former was accomplished by (1) mischaracterizing incidents falling into the largely meaningless “hostile display” category as gun crimes, when their own evidence indicated that most of the “victims” of these displays did not regard them as a part of gun crime, and (2) ignoring the far more sophisticated NCVS estimates of gun crime. Underestimating DGUs was accomplished by (1) using an eccentric and biased wording of the DGU question, (2) using a trap question that misled Rs with a DGU into thinking they had already reported the DGU, (3) employing a long recall period that increased memory loss, and the (4) selecting a biased sample that systematically underrepresented people likely to have a DGU.
Criminal Court Judges’ Opinions of the Legality of 35 Reported DGUs
Hemenway and his colleagues argue that it doesn’t really matter how many DGUs are reported in surveys because most of these uses were “probably illegal” and “against the interests of society” (Hemenway, et al. 2000, p. 263). One of the more eccentric analyses performed by the authors involved asking five unnamed criminal courts judges for their opinions on the legality of 35 DGUs reported in the two surveys, based solely on summaries of the incidents crafted by the authors. It is impossible to know exactly how this curious exercise was carried out since the authors provided only a very sketchy outline of their methods - a description that was more noteworthy for what it did not say than for what it did say. The authors did not say why these particular five judges were picked (was there prior information that the judges had unusually narrow conceptions of lawful self-defense?), did not provide readers with a copy of the instructions provided to judges describing their task, did not provide copies of the summaries of purported DGU incidents provided to the five judges, and did not provide transcripts of Rs’ descriptions of their claimed DGUs (all easily posted in an online appendix). Further, the judges provided their opinions on just 35 claimed DGUs, far too few to yield meaningful estimates of the fraction of DGUs that are lawful.
It is unclear why the authors thought that the legal status of these actions was important, as distinct from their defensive or moral character, but this analysis is nevertheless worth a closer look for its own sake. The authors reported that their five judges came from Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and California, but did not say how many came from each of these three states, leaving open the possibility that three of the five judges served in MA. Convenience could even have led the Harvard-based researchers to recruit three judges from their local Cambridge, MA area – one of the most liberal areas in the nation. Massachusetts and California have two of the lowest state gun ownership rates in the nation (Okoro et al. 2005, p. e372), and all three states have gun control laws that are far stricter than the average in the U. S. (Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence 2018). One could bias judgements in favor of interpreting DGUs as unlawful merely by picking judges from states where few law-abiding citizens own guns, where firearms are tightly controlled, and that have unusually narrow definitions of lawful self-defense.
Further, criminal courts judges ordinarily would not be familiar with the laws of states other than their own. The laws governing self-defense are not identical in the three states where the judges worked, which means that the set of five judges used at least three different standards to assess the legality of reported DGUs. Further, the authors did not report any effort to match the state in which a reported DGU occurred with a judge from that state, nor would that have been possible given that the researchers only used judges from three states. Thus, most of the time a judge was assessing the lawfulness of a purported defensive act using legal standards of self-defense that did not even apply in the state where the reported DGU occurred.


 
Actual research....


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
From your copy and paste database, just make sure all the links in it work.

It's clear you missed the concept of the Harvard study. Your links claim, "So many people said, so many people claimed", etc. The Harvard study looked at their evidence and the situation, and debunked the majority of these self defence fallacies. That's why you were suckered in.
 

Forum List

Back
Top