And when only the police have guns....and decide the cartels pay better..they kill innocent people..

[Brain357]

So then if most are thug on thug crime the majority of defenses must also be thug on thug. And if you aren't involved in criminal activity you are very safe and do not need a gun.

we have been through this brain...the studies, especially Kleck's were on normal people, not criminals. Criminals do not answer questions where they used guns because felons can't own or use guns or they get arrested and go to jail...

and rapes, robberies, beatings, stabbing happen to normal people......because that is where the money is......so as low as crime can get....there will always be people who are exposed to violent attack...from criminals...from violent relationships....from random violent monsters......so the right to protect yourself from violence will never completely go away..

that is why Juan .williams who decried people owning guns because the level of violence is going down, not up, will never get it....

You have never posted where Kleck says none of the defenses were thug on thug. Given thugs are armed and in high crime areas they are obviously the majority of defenses. So post where he says defenders are not thugs.

Brain...you have,seen Kleck respond to this specifically time and time again......when I get off the iPad I'll do it again...you may have to remind me....

I have seen him say that at the time of the defense the defender is not commiting a crime. I have never seen anything in the study stating defenders aren't thugs. Please share it.

Brain...you are trying to be clever,again...it doesn't suit you...

The study does not say that defenders aren't thugs. If it did you would post it. Given your earlier numbers we can assume 70-80% are.

 

[2aguy]

That was the actual number from Bill clinton's Department Of Justice study...their actual number was 1.5 million times guns were used to stop or prevent violent criminal attack and save lives...and Bill clinton is no friend to gun ownership.

Then if you believe that one is right how can you say 1.6? And what year was this from?

I didn't say that.....I responded to the idiots claim that the studies were all paid for by the NRA.....obviously they weren't.....my 1.6 million number, as you know, is the average from 16 different studies over 40 years....showing the breadth and depth of the actual number on defensive gun use research in this country....

I you are averaging them then you must not be confident any are correct. If the Clinton one is correct you are off by 100k. If NCVS is right off by 1.5 million. You can't average them and act like its a real number. And crime has come down 30% since those studies were done, how are you accounting for that?

The research is posted...and additional research...it is all there for everyone to read...there are 16 actual defensive gun use studies done over a 40 year period by both private and public researchers, many of whom are anti gun, and I average the numbers to get an average number of defensive gun uses each year...

the most accurate study is Kleck's because his time frame for his questions is one year and he used detailed methods to check for consistency...and his actual number for all guns was 2.5 million.....then he broke it down between handguns and long guns......look at that for the exact numbers...

So now you are claiming 2.5? The number moves a lot for you. What year was this study? Does this number account for the lower crime rates?

that is Kleck's number and you know that....his is one of 19 studies....he lists 16 of the studies in his paper.....you can look it up.....

and those aren't even all of the research on guns...you saw the list of other defensive gun use studies by even more,researchers.......did you wake up grouchy?

 

[Brain357]

So then if most are thug on thug crime the majority of defenses must also be thug on thug. And if you aren't involved in criminal activity you are very safe and do not need a gun.

we have been through this brain...the studies, especially Kleck's were on normal people, not criminals. Criminals do not answer questions where they used guns because felons can't own or use guns or they get arrested and go to jail...

and rapes, robberies, beatings, stabbing happen to normal people......because that is where the money is......so as low as crime can get....there will always be people who are exposed to violent attack...from criminals...from violent relationships....from random violent monsters......so the right to protect yourself from violence will never completely go away..

that is why Juan .williams who decried people owning guns because the level of violence is going down, not up, will never get it....

You have never posted where Kleck says none of the defenses were thug on thug. Given thugs are armed and in high crime areas they are obviously the majority of defenses. So post where he says defenders are not thugs.

They aren't covered in the research brain and you know that......the studies interviewed actual people involved as victims in attacks and they had to admit to using guns to strangers......and felons do not admit to strangers they used guns...even for self defense because that is another felony......

Then that must be in the study. Yet you continue to fail to back up your claim. Post where it is in the study. I have a quote from kleck stating most defenders are involved in criminal activity.

and you know you have actually read Kleck say this very year that that means they carried their guns in public or didn't have the right or full paperwork back in the 90s....not that they were career criminals......and pretending that you don't know that is not flattering for you...

Yes at the time of the defense, he does not however say the defender isn't otherwise a thug. but again post where in study it says no defenders are thugs.

 

[2aguy]

we have been through this brain...the studies, especially Kleck's were on normal people, not criminals. Criminals do not answer questions where they used guns because felons can't own or use guns or they get arrested and go to jail...

and rapes, robberies, beatings, stabbing happen to normal people......because that is where the money is......so as low as crime can get....there will always be people who are exposed to violent attack...from criminals...from violent relationships....from random violent monsters......so the right to protect yourself from violence will never completely go away..

that is why Juan .williams who decried people owning guns because the level of violence is going down, not up, will never get it....

You have never posted where Kleck says none of the defenses were thug on thug. Given thugs are armed and in high crime areas they are obviously the majority of defenses. So post where he says defenders are not thugs.

Brain...you have,seen Kleck respond to this specifically time and time again......when I get off the iPad I'll do it again...you may have to remind me....

I have seen him say that at the time of the defense the defender is not commiting a crime. I have never seen anything in the study stating defenders aren't thugs. Please share it.

Brain...you are trying to be clever,again...it doesn't suit you...

The study does not say that defenders aren't thugs. If it did you would post it. Given your earlier numbers we can assume 70-80% are.

We now have the reason piece that looks at other crime studies pointing out how many shootings are drug and gang related....and that piece also shows,that shootings happen because the shooters are not your normal, average person...unlike what the gun grabbers,say.....they are,abnormal,people...mostly involved in actual crime.......not Joe citizen who gets mad at the wife for one bad dinner......

 

[Brain357]

Then if you believe that one is right how can you say 1.6? And what year was this from?

I didn't say that.....I responded to the idiots claim that the studies were all paid for by the NRA.....obviously they weren't.....my 1.6 million number, as you know, is the average from 16 different studies over 40 years....showing the breadth and depth of the actual number on defensive gun use research in this country....

I you are averaging them then you must not be confident any are correct. If the Clinton one is correct you are off by 100k. If NCVS is right off by 1.5 million. You can't average them and act like its a real number. And crime has come down 30% since those studies were done, how are you accounting for that?

The research is posted...and additional research...it is all there for everyone to read...there are 16 actual defensive gun use studies done over a 40 year period by both private and public researchers, many of whom are anti gun, and I average the numbers to get an average number of defensive gun uses each year...

the most accurate study is Kleck's because his time frame for his questions is one year and he used detailed methods to check for consistency...and his actual number for all guns was 2.5 million.....then he broke it down between handguns and long guns......look at that for the exact numbers...

So now you are claiming 2.5? The number moves a lot for you. What year was this study? Does this number account for the lower crime rates?

that is Kleck's number and you know that....his is one of 19 studies....he lists 16 of the studies in his paper.....you can look it up.....

and those aren't even all of the research on guns...you saw the list of other defensive gun use studies by even more,researchers.......did you wake up grouchy?

Yes they all vary greatly. They can't all be right. So you say 2.5 now? And the ones that say 800k, those researchers were wrong then?And how are you accounting for changes in crime rates?

 

[2aguy]

Contrary to this picture of dispassionate scientists under assault by the Neanderthal NRA and its know-nothing allies in Congress, serious scholars have been criticizing the CDC's "public health" approach to gun research for years. In a presentation at the American Society of Criminology's 1994 meeting, for example, University of Illinois sociologist David Bordua and epidemiologist David Cowan called the public health literature on guns "advocacy based on political beliefs rather than scientific fact."

We have 32,000 gun deaths a year, 3000 of them children.

I'd call that a pretty serious health crisis.

Those 3,000 kids are gang members moron.......not exactly innocent waifs....true, they are victims of democrats....but not victims of innocent accidents....

There are only under 100 accidental gun deaths involving children each year........those are the real accidents.....

 

[Brain357]

You have never posted where Kleck says none of the defenses were thug on thug. Given thugs are armed and in high crime areas they are obviously the majority of defenses. So post where he says defenders are not thugs.

Brain...you have,seen Kleck respond to this specifically time and time again......when I get off the iPad I'll do it again...you may have to remind me....

I have seen him say that at the time of the defense the defender is not commiting a crime. I have never seen anything in the study stating defenders aren't thugs. Please share it.

Brain...you are trying to be clever,again...it doesn't suit you...

The study does not say that defenders aren't thugs. If it did you would post it. Given your earlier numbers we can assume 70-80% are.

We now have the reason piece that looks at other crime studies pointing out how many shootings are drug and gang related....and that piece also shows,that shootings happen because the shooters are not your normal, average person...unlike what the gun grabbers,say.....they are,abnormal,people...mostly involved in actual crime.......not Joe citizen who gets mad at the wife for one bad dinner......

As are most defenders.

 

[2aguy]

I didn't say that.....I responded to the idiots claim that the studies were all paid for by the NRA.....obviously they weren't.....my 1.6 million number, as you know, is the average from 16 different studies over 40 years....showing the breadth and depth of the actual number on defensive gun use research in this country....

I you are averaging them then you must not be confident any are correct. If the Clinton one is correct you are off by 100k. If NCVS is right off by 1.5 million. You can't average them and act like its a real number. And crime has come down 30% since those studies were done, how are you accounting for that?

The research is posted...and additional research...it is all there for everyone to read...there are 16 actual defensive gun use studies done over a 40 year period by both private and public researchers, many of whom are anti gun, and I average the numbers to get an average number of defensive gun uses each year...

the most accurate study is Kleck's because his time frame for his questions is one year and he used detailed methods to check for consistency...and his actual number for all guns was 2.5 million.....then he broke it down between handguns and long guns......look at that for the exact numbers...

So now you are claiming 2.5? The number moves a lot for you. What year was this study? Does this number account for the lower crime rates?

that is Kleck's number and you know that....his is one of 19 studies....he lists 16 of the studies in his paper.....you can look it up.....

and those aren't even all of the research on guns...you saw the list of other defensive gun use studies by even more,researchers.......did you wake up grouchy?

Yes they all vary greatly. They can't all be right. So you say 2.5 now? And the ones that say 800k, those researchers were wrong then?And how are you accounting for changes in crime rates?

brain....no...I have said Kleck's study found 2.5 from the very beginning and post it along with all the other studies so people can analyze them themselves.....I average them because that seems fair.......I do think Kleck's methods are the most accurate...and you can actually see exactly what he did in his research by reading his paper....of course you know that.......having had it posted time after time.......

What all the research shows is that Americans use guns to stop or prevent violent attack and save lives a lot........that they do so with calm and restraint....as your number of violent monsters killed by victims show...238...right? and that depriving people of the most effective means of stopping violent attack would create even more victims......

 

[2aguy]

Here is some more from the Reason article on why the CDC is a politically motivated, anti gun organization that let's their anti gun hatred cloud their research.....

And just for you...they talk about Kleck....

Public Health Pot Shots - Reason.com


As Bordua and Cowan noted, one hallmark of the public health literature on guns is a tendency to ignore contrary scholarship. Among criminologists, Gary Kleck's encyclopedic Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (1991) is universally recognized as the starting point for further research. Kleck, a professor of criminology at Florida State University, was initially a strong believer that gun ownership increased the incidence of homicide, but his research made him a skeptic. His book assembles strong evidence against the notion that reducing gun ownership is a good way to reduce violence. That may be why Point Blank is never cited in the CDC's own firearm publications or in articles reporting the results of CDC-funded gun studies.

Three Kleck studies, the first published in 1987, have found that guns are used in self-defense up to three times as often as they are used to commit crimes. These studies are so convincing that the doyen of American criminologists, Marvin Wolfgang, conceded in the Fall 1995 issue of The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology that they pose a serious challenge to his own anti-gun views. "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun against a criminal perpetrator."

 

[Brain357]

I you are averaging them then you must not be confident any are correct. If the Clinton one is correct you are off by 100k. If NCVS is right off by 1.5 million. You can't average them and act like its a real number. And crime has come down 30% since those studies were done, how are you accounting for that?

The research is posted...and additional research...it is all there for everyone to read...there are 16 actual defensive gun use studies done over a 40 year period by both private and public researchers, many of whom are anti gun, and I average the numbers to get an average number of defensive gun uses each year...

the most accurate study is Kleck's because his time frame for his questions is one year and he used detailed methods to check for consistency...and his actual number for all guns was 2.5 million.....then he broke it down between handguns and long guns......look at that for the exact numbers...

So now you are claiming 2.5? The number moves a lot for you. What year was this study? Does this number account for the lower crime rates?

that is Kleck's number and you know that....his is one of 19 studies....he lists 16 of the studies in his paper.....you can look it up.....

and those aren't even all of the research on guns...you saw the list of other defensive gun use studies by even more,researchers.......did you wake up grouchy?

Yes they all vary greatly. They can't all be right. So you say 2.5 now? And the ones that say 800k, those researchers were wrong then?And how are you accounting for changes in crime rates?

brain....no...I have said Kleck's study found 2.5 from the very beginning and post it along with all the other studies so people can analyze them themselves.....I average them because that seems fair.......I do think Kleck's methods are the most accurate...and you can actually see exactly what he did in his research by reading his paper....of course you know that.......having had it posted time after time.......

What all the research shows is that Americans use guns to stop or prevent violent attack and save lives a lot........that they do so with calm and restraint....as your number of violent monsters killed by victims show...238...right? and that depriving people of the most effective means of stopping violent attack would create even more victims......

Then you should use the 2.5 most debunked number. Otherwise your own studies are contradicting each other. And how do you account for the change in crime rates?

The 238 just means most are minor crimes defensed. There would be more if people were defending many violent attacks.

 

[2aguy]

And the nature of murderers who use guns....


Yet if there is one fact that has been incontestably established by homicide studies, it's that murderers are not ordinary gun owners but extreme aberrants whose life histories include drug abuse, serious accidents, felonies, and irrational violence. Unlike "ourselves," roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have significant criminal records, averaging an adult criminal career of six or more years with four major felonies.

Access to juvenile records would almost certainly show that the criminal careers of murderers stretch back into their adolescence. In Murder in America (1994), the criminologists Ronald W. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes report that murderers generally "have histories of committing personal violence in childhood, against other children, siblings, and small animals." Murderers who don't have criminal records usually have histories of psychiatric treatment or domestic violence that did not lead to arrest.

 

[2aguy]

The research is posted...and additional research...it is all there for everyone to read...there are 16 actual defensive gun use studies done over a 40 year period by both private and public researchers, many of whom are anti gun, and I average the numbers to get an average number of defensive gun uses each year...

the most accurate study is Kleck's because his time frame for his questions is one year and he used detailed methods to check for consistency...and his actual number for all guns was 2.5 million.....then he broke it down between handguns and long guns......look at that for the exact numbers...

So now you are claiming 2.5? The number moves a lot for you. What year was this study? Does this number account for the lower crime rates?

that is Kleck's number and you know that....his is one of 19 studies....he lists 16 of the studies in his paper.....you can look it up.....

and those aren't even all of the research on guns...you saw the list of other defensive gun use studies by even more,researchers.......did you wake up grouchy?

Yes they all vary greatly. They can't all be right. So you say 2.5 now? And the ones that say 800k, those researchers were wrong then?And how are you accounting for changes in crime rates?

brain....no...I have said Kleck's study found 2.5 from the very beginning and post it along with all the other studies so people can analyze them themselves.....I average them because that seems fair.......I do think Kleck's methods are the most accurate...and you can actually see exactly what he did in his research by reading his paper....of course you know that.......having had it posted time after time.......

What all the research shows is that Americans use guns to stop or prevent violent attack and save lives a lot........that they do so with calm and restraint....as your number of violent monsters killed by victims show...238...right? and that depriving people of the most effective means of stopping violent attack would create even more victims......

Then you should use the 2.5 most debunked number. Otherwise your own studies are contradicting each other. And how do you account for the change in crime rates?

The 238 just means most are minor crimes defensed. There would be more if people were defending many violent attacks.

The 2.5 number is actually the gold standard of research...untouched by serious attempts to show it was wrong...the anti gunners...like you....say...hey...it was debunked....but have never actually shown how you can say that.......


I don't have to account for the change in crime rates....I'lll wait for the research to see what it says......I don't make things up...

And again......as low as the crime rate is now...and it has been coming down since the 90s...as more and more people own guns...not saying it is the complete cause...but owning guns does not increase gun crime......which was one of the biggest tenets of the anti gun religion and time has shown that they were wrong.....

As low as the crime rates get...there will always be criminals, and people who need guns to stop them......

 

[2aguy]

What is said about Kleck and Gertz's methods...

What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun against a criminal perpetrator."

 

[Brain357]

So now you are claiming 2.5? The number moves a lot for you. What year was this study? Does this number account for the lower crime rates?

that is Kleck's number and you know that....his is one of 19 studies....he lists 16 of the studies in his paper.....you can look it up.....

and those aren't even all of the research on guns...you saw the list of other defensive gun use studies by even more,researchers.......did you wake up grouchy?

Yes they all vary greatly. They can't all be right. So you say 2.5 now? And the ones that say 800k, those researchers were wrong then?And how are you accounting for changes in crime rates?

brain....no...I have said Kleck's study found 2.5 from the very beginning and post it along with all the other studies so people can analyze them themselves.....I average them because that seems fair.......I do think Kleck's methods are the most accurate...and you can actually see exactly what he did in his research by reading his paper....of course you know that.......having had it posted time after time.......

What all the research shows is that Americans use guns to stop or prevent violent attack and save lives a lot........that they do so with calm and restraint....as your number of violent monsters killed by victims show...238...right? and that depriving people of the most effective means of stopping violent attack would create even more victims......

Then you should use the 2.5 most debunked number. Otherwise your own studies are contradicting each other. And how do you account for the change in crime rates?

The 238 just means most are minor crimes defensed. There would be more if people were defending many violent attacks.

The 2.5 number is actually the gold standard of research...untouched by serious attempts to show it was wrong...the anti gunners...like you....say...hey...it was debunked....but have never actually shown how you can say that.......


I don't have to account for the change in crime rates....I'lll wait for the research to see what it says......I don't make things up...

And again......as low as the crime rate is now...and it has been coming down since the 90s...as more and more people own guns...not saying it is the complete cause...but owning guns does not increase gun crime......which was one of the biggest tenets of the anti gun religion and time has shown that they were wrong.....

As low as the crime rates get...there will always be criminals, and people who need guns to stop them......

Right 2.5 million defenses and only about 238 criminals shot and killed in defense each year. Does it really need more debunking than that?

Then the numbers have more crimes defensed than are committed, that's quite a problem.

Only about 50 reported defenses each year.

There are pages and pages of debunking.

 

[2aguy]

Here are the studies for the studio audience.....

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

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

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

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717
DMIa 1978...2,141,512
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
Kleck...2.5 million

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

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


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

DMIb...1978...1,098,409

Hart...1981...1.797,461

Mauser...1990...1,487,342

Gallup...1993...1,621,377

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

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036

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



NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000


Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000

 

[Brain357]

What is said about Kleck and Gertz's methods...

What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun against a criminal perpetrator."

Nra quote?

 

[Brain357]

Here are the studies for the studio audience.....

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

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

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

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717
DMIa 1978...2,141,512
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
Kleck...2.5 million

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

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


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

DMIb...1978...1,098,409

Hart...1981...1.797,461

Mauser...1990...1,487,342

Gallup...1993...1,621,377

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

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036

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



NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000


Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000

So you would say the. Terrance is very wrong?

 

[2aguy]

What is said about Kleck and Gertz's methods...

What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun against a criminal perpetrator."

Nra quote?

You know it isn't brain...

You can look Marvin Wolfgang up on wikipedia......

Public Health Pot Shots - Reason.com

These studies are so convincing that the doyen of American criminologists, Marvin Wolfgang, conceded in the Fall 1995 issue of The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology that they pose a serious challenge to his own anti-gun views. "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun against a criminal perpetrator."

 

[2aguy]

Here are the studies for the studio audience.....

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

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

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

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717
DMIa 1978...2,141,512
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
Kleck...2.5 million

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

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


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

DMIb...1978...1,098,409

Hart...1981...1.797,461

Mauser...1990...1,487,342

Gallup...1993...1,621,377

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

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036

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



NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000


Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000

So you would say the. Terrance is very wrong?

I wouldn't say anything....I show the numbers of the studies.....I averaged them to get a better picture....since that seemed like the reasonable thing to do....Kleck says he used the methods he used to get a more accurate picture........

And also points out that the large number of studies that show defensive gun use is common...as opposed to the one study that shows it is uncommon....is a good sign that Americans are actually using guns to stop crimes....a lot........and that any attempt to disarm them will not make them safer.......

 

[2aguy]

Here you go Brain...Marvin Wolfgang's entire presentation where he praises Kleck and Mertz...even though Wolfgang is an anti gunner himself....

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6873&context=jclc&sei-redir=1&referer=http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=marvin+Wolfgang+letter+to+kleck&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#search="marvin Wolfgang letter kleck"

REMARKS OF MARVIN E. WOLFGANG AT THE GUNS AND VIOLENCE SYMPOSIUM AT NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LAW, FEBRUARY 3, 1996 MARVIN E. WOLFGANG

The following remarks were to be delivered by Dr. Wolfgang at the Guns and Violence Symposium.

For those who have not read Volume 86,Number1 of the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminologyon Guns and Violence Symposium, I would like to make clear that I had been asked to write only a commentary,

not an original research article. I focused my commentary on an arti cle titled Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of SelfDe-fense with a Gun by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Let me read the first and last paragraphs of the commentary that I originally made, titled A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed. The first paragraph reads:

I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of The Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe from the police. I hate guns-ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people.

The last paragraph of my commentary reads as follows:

The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I can- not fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objec- tions in advance and have done exceedingly well.