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

[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.

There was no such study. and frankly, it defies logic.

Let's look at the numbers of ACTUAL Violent crimes.

the reported crime rate is 300 crimes committed per 100,000 people.

Reported violent crime rate in the U.S. 1990-2013 Timeline

So for there to be 1.5 million crimes thwarted by "Good guys with guns', that would mean the attempted crime rate would be 1500 per 100,000 people.

Really? Seriously?

Or to put it another way, since only 200 'justifiable homicides" were committed with guns, that would mean that a gun was only fired 1 out of 7500 incidents.

So untrained gun owners apparently can show more restraint and judgement than the police.

No, really.

the reported crime rate...what don't you guys get...when you stop a criminal with a gun...and no shots are fired, and no one is injured...odds are it isn't reported as a crime because it wasn't completed....it was stopped...just like the 74 year old woman I posted about...she showed the robber her gun and he walked away....

And the other post where the old man was being beaten...the guy showed them his gun and they all left before the police arrived...including the old man getting beaten by his relative......

 

[2aguy]

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.......

When they go from 100k to 3.6 million averaging isn't the reasonable thing to do. They aren't all right.

Actually...you know that the 100,000 number is from the National Crime Victimization Survey...which is not an actual gun study...it is a crime victim study that remotely touches on guns....so shouldn't be included in actual gun studies....I put it there to be nice to you and to save the time of having to find it every time you bring it up.......

So not including the NCVS which is not a study of the defensive use of guns....like the other 16......

The number at it's lowest is over 760,000 a year......and probably closer to Kleck's 2.5 million because his methods are more accurate.......so even at the lowest number of 760,000...that is still greater than the 8-9,000 intentional gun murders, mostly by gangs and drug criminals each year.......

so again...you and the other anti gunners are wrong on the issue......

The NCVS is the only one that would likely exclude thug on thug defenses.

So 2.5 then? You really believe there have been 75 million defenses in the last 30 years? You can't be serious. Anyone with a tiny amount of common sense can see that isn't right. But then again with only 230 or so criminals shot and killed in defense each year it's also obvious. More gun owners accidently shoot and kill themselves then shoot and kill criminals in defense? Wow you live in fantasy land.

Brain....the NCVS is not a defensive gun use study......it has no bearing on the actual research.....you use it because it is the only number you can find that is that low.....

And again...Kleck is the most accurate but he isn't the only researcher.....and his number isn't even the highest.....and yet you go after him alone......the L.A. times study, an anti gun paper...is even higher........

I use it because it's the most possible number. For all the reasons already given 2.5 million is a joke.

so...actual researchers using proven research methods, spending years to gain the knowledge of how to conduct these studies, spending thousands of dollars to do it, hiring staff, and other researchers....16 different groups of researchers over 40 years looking specifically at the use of guns in self defense....

but your number that you made up sounds more plausible...


Really?

 

[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.

There was no such study. and frankly, it defies logic.

Let's look at the numbers of ACTUAL Violent crimes.

the reported crime rate is 300 crimes committed per 100,000 people.

Reported violent crime rate in the U.S. 1990-2013 Timeline

So for there to be 1.5 million crimes thwarted by "Good guys with guns', that would mean the attempted crime rate would be 1500 per 100,000 people.

Really? Seriously?

Or to put it another way, since only 200 'justifiable homicides" were committed with guns, that would mean that a gun was only fired 1 out of 7500 incidents.

So untrained gun owners apparently can show more restraint and judgement than the police.

No, really.

Here is the study....from the Clinton justice dept.....they found 1.5 million defensive gun uses....and then...because they are anti gun and Clinton paid them for the study....they try to explain why he very numbers they found using tried and true research methods..why their very own numbers couldn't be right...

anti gunners can't be trusted...their work is biased and they want it to show guns are bad...even when their own research proves them wrong.....

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

 

[JoeB131]

And Klecks methods are in his study and have been reproduced and examined all these years and no one can touch them.....other than anti-gun nuts who simply say they don't count.......

Kleck doesn't defend his own study anymore.

 

[JoeB131]

Here is the study....from the Clinton justice dept.....they found 1.5 million defensive gun uses....and then...because they are anti gun and Clinton paid them for the study....they try to explain why he very numbers they found using tried and true research methods..why their very own numbers couldn't be right...

anti gunners can't be trusted...their work is biased and they want it to show guns are bad...even when their own research proves them wrong.....

If anyone can't be trusted, it's the NRA. They have a vested interest in selling guns and keeping you scared.

 

[JoeB131]

Moron...the clinton Dept. of Justice study is not imaginary........are you that warped........it found 1.5 million uses...and clinton is as anti gun as they come........

And normal people faced with criminals don't have to make an arrest or pursue the criminal...once the attacker runs away, they don't have to pursue....moron....

Guy, it wasn't a "Clinton Study". And, no 1.5 million is a ludicrous number. we'd all know lots of times this happened.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah....I have never see a Yak in person....so they obviously don't exist....moron....

Well, let's look at that. How many Yaks are there in the United States? probably only in Zoos. Even in their native habitat of the Himalayas, they are classified as "vulnerable". So the reason you've probably never seen a Yak in person is because they are RARE.

So now we get to Defensive Gun Uses. I've never seen one, and I've never heard about one from anyone I know personally. Because they are RARE. They just don't happen that often.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[JoeB131]

And the other post where the old man was being beaten...the guy showed them his gun and they all left before the police arrived...including the old man getting beaten by his relative......

Exactly my point. this guy having a gun did nothing to help the situation. They were probably done beating on him for whatever he did to piss off his relatives.

 

[2aguy]

And Klecks methods are in his study and have been reproduced and examined all these years and no one can touch them.....other than anti-gun nuts who simply say they don't count.......

Kleck doesn't defend his own study anymore.

Do you just pull this stuff out of thin air? Kleck just defended his study from a new bunch of guys a couple months ago...I posted it......it was in a response in Politico.........

 

[2aguy]

Here is the study....from the Clinton justice dept.....they found 1.5 million defensive gun uses....and then...because they are anti gun and Clinton paid them for the study....they try to explain why he very numbers they found using tried and true research methods..why their very own numbers couldn't be right...

anti gunners can't be trusted...their work is biased and they want it to show guns are bad...even when their own research proves them wrong.....

If anyone can't be trusted, it's the NRA. They have a vested interest in selling guns and keeping you scared.

they haven't done any of the studies I list....

 

[2aguy]

Yeah....I have never see a Yak in person....so they obviously don't exist....moron....

Well, let's look at that. How many Yaks are there in the United States? probably only in Zoos. Even in their native habitat of the Himalayas, they are classified as "vulnerable". So the reason you've probably never seen a Yak in person is because they are RARE.

So now we get to Defensive Gun Uses. I've never seen one, and I've never heard about one from anyone I know personally. Because they are RARE. They just don't happen that often.

Thank you for proving my point.

Yeah....I have never see a Yak in person....so they obviously don't exist....moron....

Well, let's look at that. How many Yaks are there in the United States? probably only in Zoos. Even in their native habitat of the Himalayas, they are classified as "vulnerable". So the reason you've probably never seen a Yak in person is because they are RARE.

So now we get to Defensive Gun Uses. I've never seen one, and I've never heard about one from anyone I know personally. Because they are RARE. They just don't happen that often.

Thank you for proving my point.

You should have looked up Yaks....they are domesticated animals in the himalaya's but there is a small group of endangered yaks.....so...wrong again...

 

[2aguy]

And the other post where the old man was being beaten...the guy showed them his gun and they all left before the police arrived...including the old man getting beaten by his relative......

Exactly my point. this guy having a gun did nothing to help the situation. They were probably done beating on him for whatever he did to piss off his relatives.

Really.....they stopped the beating when he ordered them to stop.....then they all ran away...no shots fired, no one shot or killed.....just like the stats say....

 

[Missourian]

How do we constantly end up in these esoteric debates.

Here is the bottom line.

Guns can be dangerous if not handled with care and respect. Just like millions of other every items, from drain cleaner to swimming pools.

Guns save lives, there is no doubt about it, whether its 1.6 million or 800,000, it's a lot.

Guns can be misused, criminals misuse them, suicidal folks misuse them, careless people misuse them.

The real question to be debated is, do the pros outweigh the cons.

Let's just apply some logic.

You can't stop suicidal people from killing themselves by removing guns. There are just too many other methods. Anyone disagree?

That leaves us with 800,000 defensive gun uses (lowest reasonable estimate) vs 11,000 homicides.

It sucks that there is criminal use of firearms, and it sucks that some folks are reckless with their firearms...but that is no reason to penalize the 100,000,000 gun owners and the countless future gun owners who want nothing more than to be responsible and have the means to defend themselves and their loved ones.

 

[2aguy]

How do we constantly end up in these esoteric debates.

Here is the bottom line.

Guns can be dangerous if not handled with care and respect. Just like millions of other every items, from drain cleaner to swimming pools.

Guns save lives, there is no doubt about it, whether its 1.6 million or 800,000, it's a lot.

Guns can be misused, criminals misuse them, suicidal folks misuse them, careless people misuse them.

The real question to be debated is, do the pros outweigh the cons.

Let's just apply some logic.

You can't stop suicidal people from killing themselves by removing guns. There are just too many other methods. Anyone disagree?

That leaves us with 800,000 defensive gun uses (lowest reasonable estimate) vs 11,000 homicides.

It sucks that there is criminal use of firearms, and it sucks that some folks are reckless with their firearms...but that is no reason to penalize the 100,000,000 gun owners and future gun owners who want nothing more than to be responsible and have the means to defend themselves and their loved ones.

We end up in these debates,because those people opposed to the private ownership of guns continue to fabricate evidence to support their claims....because they don't care,about criminal use of guns....because if they did they would focus on criminals not law abiding citizens.......

and the gun murder rate...as per FBI table 8 on gum murders shows the gun murder number for 2013 is 8,454....down from 2009 where it was just over 10,000...

it is going down, not up.

 

[2aguy]

And Klecks methods are in his study and have been reproduced and examined all these years and no one can touch them.....other than anti-gun nuts who simply say they don't count.......

Kleck doesn't defend his own study anymore.

Here is Kleck defending his study this year in February.....2015....

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine

It’s deja vu all over again. In a recent Politico Magazinearticle, Evan DeFilippis and Devin Hughes resuscitate criticisms of a survey on defensive gun use that I conducted with my colleague Marc Gertz way back in 1993—the National Self-Defense Survey (NSDS). The authors repeat, item for item, speculative criticisms floated by a man named David Hemenway in 1997 and repeated endlessly since. The conclusion these critics drew is that our survey grossly overestimated the frequency of defensive gun use (DGU), a situation in which a crime victim uses a gun to threaten or attack the offender in self-defense. But what DeFilippis and Hughes carefully withheld from readers is the fact that I and my colleague have refuted every one of Hemenway’s dubious claims, and those by other critics of the NSDS, first in 1997, and again, even more extensively, in 1998 and 2001. Skeptical readers can check for themselves if we failed to refute them—the 1998 version is publicly available here. More seriously motivated readers could acquire a copy of Armed, a 2001 book by Don Kates and me, and read chapter six.

and here is the refutation of hemenwayrebutt by Kleck pointed out in the quote....I am linking directly to it....

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

Read more: Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine

 

[2aguy]

Missourian.....did you have a chance, or an interest in reading about the various studies.....? the one above where Kleck addresses the skeptics covers hemenway and kellerman quite a bit....and points out the other studies and what they discovered......

It also helps explain why these discussions keep going on.....


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

Degrading Scientific Standards to Get the Defensive Gun Use Estimate Down

By Gary Kleck

In this article, Florida State University Professor Gary Kleck responds to critics of the National Self-Defense Survey, which found that there are approximately 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year in the United States.

1. Introduction

It has now been confirmed by at least 16 surveys, including the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (NSDS) of Kleck and Gertz (1995), 12 other national surveys, and 3 state-wide surveys, that defensive use of firearms by crime victims is common in the United States, probably substantially more common than criminal uses of guns by offenders. The estimates of the annual number of defensive uses of guns in the United States range from 760,000 to 3.6 million, with the best estimate, derived from the NSDS, being 2.5 million, compared to about a half a million incidents in which offenders used guns to commit a crime (Kleck 1997, pp. 149-160, 187-189; see also the more recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study of Ikeda, Dahlberg, Sacks, Mercy, and Powell 1997, which estimated 1.0 million defensive gun uses linked with burglaries in which the intruder was seen, compared to 0.9 million such incidents derived from the Kleck- Gertz survey, 1995, pp. 184-185, estimates within sampling error of each other).

It has also been consistently and repeatedly confirmed that defensive gun use (DGU) is effective: crime victims who use guns for self-protection are less likely to be injured or lose property than otherwise similar victims in otherwise similar crime situations who either do not resist at all or who use other self- protection strategies (the body of evidence is reviewed in KleckKleck Degrading Scientific Standards

 

[2aguy]

Here is where kellerman and hemenway are shown to be really bad at research....and biased due to allowing their anti gun sentiments get in the way of their work....

For example, it is a useful exercise to contrast Hemenway’s assessment of the NSDS results with his uncritical citation (Hemenway 1997b, p. 1442) of findings from a bizarre study (Kellermann et al. 1995) in which the authors assessed the frequency of DGUs linked with home invasion crimes entirely on the basis of the number of times victims volunteered information about such DGUs to Atlanta police. According to the Atlanta Police Department, the offense report forms that their officers fill out do not include a box or other place calling for information about victim weapon use, nor are officers trained or required to ask crime victims about such things. Thus, information about victim weapon use, no matter how common it might in fact be, would almost never appear in police offense reports (a fact reported in the journal that published the Kellermann article––see Fotis 1996; confirmed by Kooi 1997). Nevertheless, solely on the basis of Atlanta Police Department offense reports, Kellermann and his colleagues concluded that DGUs almost never occurred in connection with home invasion crimes, because they were almost never mentioned in the offense reports!

 

[Brain357]

When they go from 100k to 3.6 million averaging isn't the reasonable thing to do. They aren't all right.

Actually...you know that the 100,000 number is from the National Crime Victimization Survey...which is not an actual gun study...it is a crime victim study that remotely touches on guns....so shouldn't be included in actual gun studies....I put it there to be nice to you and to save the time of having to find it every time you bring it up.......

So not including the NCVS which is not a study of the defensive use of guns....like the other 16......

The number at it's lowest is over 760,000 a year......and probably closer to Kleck's 2.5 million because his methods are more accurate.......so even at the lowest number of 760,000...that is still greater than the 8-9,000 intentional gun murders, mostly by gangs and drug criminals each year.......

so again...you and the other anti gunners are wrong on the issue......

The NCVS is the only one that would likely exclude thug on thug defenses.

So 2.5 then? You really believe there have been 75 million defenses in the last 30 years? You can't be serious. Anyone with a tiny amount of common sense can see that isn't right. But then again with only 230 or so criminals shot and killed in defense each year it's also obvious. More gun owners accidently shoot and kill themselves then shoot and kill criminals in defense? Wow you live in fantasy land.

Brain....the NCVS is not a defensive gun use study......it has no bearing on the actual research.....you use it because it is the only number you can find that is that low.....

And again...Kleck is the most accurate but he isn't the only researcher.....and his number isn't even the highest.....and yet you go after him alone......the L.A. times study, an anti gun paper...is even higher........

I use it because it's the most possible number. For all the reasons already given 2.5 million is a joke.

so...actual researchers using proven research methods, spending years to gain the knowledge of how to conduct these studies, spending thousands of dollars to do it, hiring staff, and other researchers....16 different groups of researchers over 40 years looking specifically at the use of guns in self defense....

but your number that you made up sounds more plausible...


Really?

Yes your researchers are so great their results go from 700k to 3.5 million. Boy they are so accurate.

 

[2aguy]

Actually...you know that the 100,000 number is from the National Crime Victimization Survey...which is not an actual gun study...it is a crime victim study that remotely touches on guns....so shouldn't be included in actual gun studies....I put it there to be nice to you and to save the time of having to find it every time you bring it up.......

So not including the NCVS which is not a study of the defensive use of guns....like the other 16......

The number at it's lowest is over 760,000 a year......and probably closer to Kleck's 2.5 million because his methods are more accurate.......so even at the lowest number of 760,000...that is still greater than the 8-9,000 intentional gun murders, mostly by gangs and drug criminals each year.......

so again...you and the other anti gunners are wrong on the issue......

The NCVS is the only one that would likely exclude thug on thug defenses.

So 2.5 then? You really believe there have been 75 million defenses in the last 30 years? You can't be serious. Anyone with a tiny amount of common sense can see that isn't right. But then again with only 230 or so criminals shot and killed in defense each year it's also obvious. More gun owners accidently shoot and kill themselves then shoot and kill criminals in defense? Wow you live in fantasy land.

Brain....the NCVS is not a defensive gun use study......it has no bearing on the actual research.....you use it because it is the only number you can find that is that low.....

And again...Kleck is the most accurate but he isn't the only researcher.....and his number isn't even the highest.....and yet you go after him alone......the L.A. times study, an anti gun paper...is even higher........

I use it because it's the most possible number. For all the reasons already given 2.5 million is a joke.

so...actual researchers using proven research methods, spending years to gain the knowledge of how to conduct these studies, spending thousands of dollars to do it, hiring staff, and other researchers....16 different groups of researchers over 40 years looking specifically at the use of guns in self defense....

but your number that you made up sounds more plausible...


Really?

Yes your researchers are so great their results go from 700k to 3.5 million. Boy they are so accurate.

but they actually did research...all 16 separate studies...they didn't just imagine a number they liked because it looked pretty.....

 

[JoeB131]

Do you just pull this stuff out of thin air? Kleck just defended his study from a new bunch of guys a couple months ago...I posted it......it was in a response in Politico.........

Kleck is full of shit, and he knows it.