Americans prefer to live where they can own guns and protect themselves...thank goodness.....

[M14 Shooter]

Since there are no communities in the US were "nobody is allowed to be armed", that is kind of a silly poll.

Irrelevant.
The question:
"Would you feel safer moving to a neighborhood where nobody was allowed to own a gun or a neighborhood where you could have a gun for your own protection?"
And so, if there was such a neighborhood, only 22% would feel safer living there.

 

[Brain357]

You have a bad case of making shit up.

This is what hemenway used to rebutt Kleck and the other 16 studies on defensive gun use...hemenway based his criticism using the NCVS........


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

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

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

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

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

NISVS “represents the public health perspective,” as Tuesday’s report puts it, and it asks questions about specific behavior, including whether the survey-taker was unable to consent to sex because he or she had been drinking or taking drugs. NISVS was first conducted in 2010, so it doesn’t go back in time the way the NCVS numbers do. But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).

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

In order to have a DGU you need a crime. Well unless you are kleck then you will count any use of a gun including intimidation and probably criminal. The NCVS would capture all DGUs. And it is a survey of 90k households. That is probably more than all your gun studies combined. Larger sample equals more accurate results.

brain...you are really dumb....if you use your gun and the guy runs away....no crime.....it can't be counted....the NCVS does not ask about using a gun for self defense.....it doesn't even use the word gun.....are you really that dense...or are you just being a moron......

You seem to be really dumb. The NCVS includes attempted crimes.

You are a moron brain...only a gun grabber like you would think that a survey that did not ask about defensive gun use would be more accurate than actual studies that specifically ask about wether the person used a gun for self defense......as if trying to find out how much orange juice people can be discovered by not asking people how much orange juice people drink...instead asking them about their driving habits and if they mention going shopping you also get them to say they bought juice.....you really need help....

No an intelligent person would know that is how you eliminate the false positives. Again if gun studies were accurate they would arrive at a similar number. They go from 500K to 3.6 million. Proving they are not accurate.

 

[2aguy]

Here is a new debunking of Kleck:
Here are the facts Kleck missed: According to his own survey more than 50 percent of respondents claim to have reported their defensive gun use to the police. This means we should find at least half of his 2.5 million annual Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) in police reports alone. Instead, the most comprehensive nonpartisan effort to catalog police and media reports on DGUs by The Gun Violence Archive was barely able to find 1,600 in 2014. Where are the remaining 99.94 percent of Kleck’s supposed DGUs hiding?

Defensive Gun Use Gary Kleck Misfires Again Armed With Reason

Moron....they show me where kleck said this exactly and what he said....since gun grabbers lie we need to see the exact wording...you listed this...you find it.....

 

[Brain357]

Here is a new debunking of Kleck:
Here are the facts Kleck missed: According to his own survey more than 50 percent of respondents claim to have reported their defensive gun use to the police. This means we should find at least half of his 2.5 million annual Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) in police reports alone. Instead, the most comprehensive nonpartisan effort to catalog police and media reports on DGUs by The Gun Violence Archive was barely able to find 1,600 in 2014. Where are the remaining 99.94 percent of Kleck’s supposed DGUs hiding?

Defensive Gun Use Gary Kleck Misfires Again Armed With Reason

Moron....they show me where kleck said this exactly and what he said....since gun grabbers lie we need to see the exact wording...you listed this...you find it.....

In more denial are you? I posted a link. This is just one of the MANY ways he has been debunked.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Contrary to the lies of the NRA, gun control does not mean banning guns.

The NRA has never limited its definition of, or opposition to, gun control as 'banning guns'.
The NRA opposes any restriction that does nothng to prevent criminals from getting guns and/or infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.
.Maybe if you actually read what the NRA says, you'd know that.

The majority of us, in the middle, agree that law abiding folks should be allowed to own and carry guns for their protection. We differ only on how that is to be regulated.

Do tell.... how do you think owning/carrying a gun should be regulated?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just curious, but why did you ignore the part of the poll that stated that most did support strict limits on semi-automatic and assault type weapons?

Guessing because it does not list a specific result.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm an American who prefers to live where I DON'T have to carry a gun to protect myself.

That would be a place where you believe gun control is unnecessary.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If there had been no guns last year in the U.S., there would have been 10,000 fewer gun deaths.

^^^
Unsupportable claim.

 

[2aguy]

Here is a new debunking of Kleck:
Here are the facts Kleck missed: According to his own survey more than 50 percent of respondents claim to have reported their defensive gun use to the police. This means we should find at least half of his 2.5 million annual Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) in police reports alone. Instead, the most comprehensive nonpartisan effort to catalog police and media reports on DGUs by The Gun Violence Archive was barely able to find 1,600 in 2014. Where are the remaining 99.94 percent of Kleck’s supposed DGUs hiding?

Defensive Gun Use Gary Kleck Misfires Again Armed With Reason

Moron....they show me where kleck said this exactly and what he said....since gun grabbers lie we need to see the exact wording...you listed this...you find it.....

In more denial are you? I posted a link. This is just one of the MANY ways he has been debunked.

Moron...here is his actual study...and what he says....

Armed Resistance to Crime The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun

How could such a serious thing happen so often without becoming common knowledge? This phenomenon, regardless of how widespread it really is, is largely an invisible one as far as governmental statistics are concerned. Neither the defender/victim nor the criminal ordinarily has much incentive to report this sort of event to the police, and either or both often have strong reasons not to do so. Consequently many of these incidents never come to the attention of the police, while others may be reported but without victims mentioning their use of a gun. And even when a DGU is reported, it will not necessarily be recorded by the police, who ordinarily do not keep statistics on matters other than DGUs resulting in a death, since police record-keeping is largely confined to information helpful in apprehending perpetrators and making a legal case for convicting them. Because such statistics are not kept, we cannot even be certain that a large number of DGUs are not reported to the police.

The health system cannot shed much light on this phenomenon either, since very few of these incidents involve injuries.[61] In the rare case where someone is hurt, it is usually the criminal, who is unlikely to seek medical attention for any but the most life-threatening gunshot wounds, as this would ordinarily result in a police interrogation. Physicians in many states are required by law to report treatment of gunshot wounds to the police, making it necessary for medically treated criminals to explain to police how they received their wounds.

Finally, it is now clear that virtually none of the victims who use guns defensively tell interviewers about it in the NCVS. Our estimates imply that only about 3% of DGUs among NCVS Rs are reported to interviewers.[62] Based on other comparisons of alternative survey estimates of violent events with NCVS estimates, this high level of under-reporting is eminently plausible. Loftin and Mackenzie reported that rapes might be thirty-three times as frequent as NCVS estimates indicate, while spousal violence could easily be twelve times as high.[63] There is no inherent value to knowing the exact number of DGUs any more than there is any value to knowing the exact number of crimes which are committed each year. The estimates inTable 2 are at best only rough approximations, which are probably too low. It is sufficient to conclude from these numbers that DGU is very common, far more common than has been recognized to date by criminologists or policy makers, and certainly far more common than one would think based on any official sources of information.

 

[2aguy]

Brain...that you continue to trust the anti gunner sites and researchers really does not show your intelligence......

 

[M14 Shooter]

In what alternative universe? If there are no guns, there can be no gun deaths.

Yawn.
~300,000,000 gun in the US.
8454 run-related murders in the US (2013)
99.997182% of the guns in the US are not involved in a murder.
You look at an act committed with one gun, you argue against the existence of the ~35,000 that were not involved in such an act.
No thinking person finds any sense in that.

 

[2aguy]

To repeat why the NCVS is crap....

Based on other comparisons of alternative survey estimates of violent events with NCVS estimates, this high level of under-reporting is eminently plausible. Loftin and Mackenzie reported that rapes might be thirty-three times as frequent as NCVS estimates indicate, while spousal violence could easily be twelve times as high.[63]

 

[orogenicman]

I'm an American who prefers to live where I DON'T have to carry a gun to protect myself.

That would be a place where you believe gun control is unnecessary.

I didn't say I lived in such a place. But you know, despite that fact, I don't worry about it needing such lethal protection, because the world doesn't owe me anything. It was here first.

 

[Brain357]

Here is a new debunking of Kleck:
Here are the facts Kleck missed: According to his own survey more than 50 percent of respondents claim to have reported their defensive gun use to the police. This means we should find at least half of his 2.5 million annual Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) in police reports alone. Instead, the most comprehensive nonpartisan effort to catalog police and media reports on DGUs by The Gun Violence Archive was barely able to find 1,600 in 2014. Where are the remaining 99.94 percent of Kleck’s supposed DGUs hiding?

Defensive Gun Use Gary Kleck Misfires Again Armed With Reason

Moron....they show me where kleck said this exactly and what he said....since gun grabbers lie we need to see the exact wording...you listed this...you find it.....

In more denial are you? I posted a link. This is just one of the MANY ways he has been debunked.

Moron...here is his actual study...and what he says....

Armed Resistance to Crime The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun

How could such a serious thing happen so often without becoming common knowledge? This phenomenon, regardless of how widespread it really is, is largely an invisible one as far as governmental statistics are concerned. Neither the defender/victim nor the criminal ordinarily has much incentive to report this sort of event to the police, and either or both often have strong reasons not to do so. Consequently many of these incidents never come to the attention of the police, while others may be reported but without victims mentioning their use of a gun. And even when a DGU is reported, it will not necessarily be recorded by the police, who ordinarily do not keep statistics on matters other than DGUs resulting in a death, since police record-keeping is largely confined to information helpful in apprehending perpetrators and making a legal case for convicting them. Because such statistics are not kept, we cannot even be certain that a large number of DGUs are not reported to the police.

The health system cannot shed much light on this phenomenon either, since very few of these incidents involve injuries.[61] In the rare case where someone is hurt, it is usually the criminal, who is unlikely to seek medical attention for any but the most life-threatening gunshot wounds, as this would ordinarily result in a police interrogation. Physicians in many states are required by law to report treatment of gunshot wounds to the police, making it necessary for medically treated criminals to explain to police how they received their wounds.

Finally, it is now clear that virtually none of the victims who use guns defensively tell interviewers about it in the NCVS. Our estimates imply that only about 3% of DGUs among NCVS Rs are reported to interviewers.[62] Based on other comparisons of alternative survey estimates of violent events with NCVS estimates, this high level of under-reporting is eminently plausible. Loftin and Mackenzie reported that rapes might be thirty-three times as frequent as NCVS estimates indicate, while spousal violence could easily be twelve times as high.[63] There is no inherent value to knowing the exact number of DGUs any more than there is any value to knowing the exact number of crimes which are committed each year. The estimates inTable 2 are at best only rough approximations, which are probably too low. It is sufficient to conclude from these numbers that DGU is very common, far more common than has been recognized to date by criminologists or policy makers, and certainly far more common than one would think based on any official sources of information.

Sorry but the moron is the guy who believes in a debunked survey and has NOTHING from the real world to back it up.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm an American who prefers to live where I DON'T have to carry a gun to protect myself.

That would be a place where you believe gun control is unnecessary.

I didn't say I lived in such a place.

You said you would prefer to live there, so I assumed you did not.
My point remains: that would be a place where you believe gun control is unnecessary.

....
I don't worry about it needing such lethal protection,

If you live in a place where gun control is necessary, how does it not follow that you then need a weapon for your own protection?

 

[orogenicman]

In what alternative universe? If there are no guns, there can be no gun deaths.

Yawn.
~300,000,000 gun in the US.
8454 run-related murders in the US (2013)
99.997182% of the guns in the US are not involved in a murder.
You look at an act committed with one gun, you argue against the existence of the ~35,000 that were not involved in such an act.
No thinking person finds any sense in that.

I just think it is pathetic that you have to use the number of guns that exist in the country as an excuse for the fact that more people in the U.S. died of gun-related deaths in the U.S. in 2013 than American troops that died in the entire Iraq war/occupation.

 

[orogenicman]

I'm an American who prefers to live where I DON'T have to carry a gun to protect myself.

That would be a place where you believe gun control is unnecessary.

I didn't say I lived in such a place.

You said you would prefer to live there, so I assumed you did not.
My point remains: that would be a place where you believe gun control is unnecessary.

It would be a place where gun control would be unnecessary because there would be no private gun ownership, particularly handguns.

 

[Brain357]

Brain...that you continue to trust the anti gunner sites and researchers really does not show your intelligence......

That you continue to believe in debunked surveys when NOTHING from REALITY supports them shows you might be crazy. Or you work for a gun manufacturer.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In what alternative universe? If there are no guns, there can be no gun deaths.

Yawn.
~300,000,000 gun in the US.
8454 run-related murders in the US (2013)
99.997182% of the guns in the US are not involved in a murder.
You look at an act committed with one gun, you argue against the existence of the ~35,000 that were not involved in such an act.
No thinking person finds any sense in that.

I just think it is pathetic that you have to use the number of guns that exist in the country as an excuse for the fact that more people in the U.S. died of gun-related deaths....

I'm sorry... you;d rather argue numbers without any context?
I mean sure, it makes your argument look better, but isn't it a little dishonest?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm an American who prefers to live where I DON'T have to carry a gun to protect myself.

That would be a place where you believe gun control is unnecessary.

I didn't say I lived in such a place.

You said you would prefer to live there, so I assumed you did not.
My point remains: that would be a place where you believe gun control is unnecessary.

It would be a place where gun control would be unnecessary because there would be no private gun ownership, particularly handguns.

Ok... and?
Is there such a place in the US?
If you live in a place where gun control is necessary, how does it not follow that you then need a weapon for your own protection?