Another concealed carry owner doing the wrong thing

[2aguy]

And just for the record...FBI stats on murder up to 2011...not as high as you might think...and they actually count bodies...

More guns are being bought, owned and carried by law abiding citizens...and the murder rate is down from even 2007...

FBI mdash Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

 

[2aguy]

Look, I just realized something...the Justice Dept. Study...was in 1994...this was the bill clinton Justice Dept. and their number is higher than yours...

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
(Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text,PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.)

 

[Brain357]

Studies go from like 68k to 3 million. I see no reason to believe they are accurate. I think kleck even says from 800k to 2.5mil? That is just not accurate. You can keep repeating these but they don't change anything for me. I have ones that are lower and you insist the higher ones are true. But the fact remains I can find more accidental shooting news than you can defenses. That makes it clear to me actual defenses aren't anywhere near as high as you think.

Sorry but common sense says the numbers aren't that high. I have studies and you have studies. People have debunked your studies and mine. But common sense says it's not that high. I will go with the facts, not surveys.

Given how vastly different the numbers are they can't all be very accurate now can they?

Until you can explain why they are reported so little posting the same studies over and over will not change my mind.

I have never needed a gun for defense and neither has anyone I know. I've never heard about anyone in my neighborhood using one for defense. While it certainly does happen, it is rare. This is why they are seldom in the news.

Okay...again...here are all the studies that actually give numbers for guns used to save lives and stop crimes taken from the table I provided from guncite.com...

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

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

DMIa 1978...2,141,512

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

Hart...1981...1.797,461

Ohio...1982...771,043

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

Gallup...1991...777,153

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

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,682

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
(Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text,PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
.(Lawrence Southwick, Jr.,Guns and Justifiable Homicide: Deterrence and Defense-concludes there are at least 400,000 "fewer violent crimes due to civilian self-defense use of guns" and at least "800,000 violent crimes are deterred each year because of gun ownership and use by civilians.")


As Kleck points out in his paper...

All of the eleven surveys yielded results that implied over 700,000 uses per year. None of the surveys implied estimates even remotely like the 65,000 to 82,000 figures derived from the NCVS. To date, there has been no confirmation of even the most approximate sort of the NCVS estimates. Indeed, no survey has ever yielded an estimate which is of the same magnitude as those derived from the NCVS.

The Dept. of Justice study doesn't even support your number...


Soooo...tell me Brain357...your number from an anti gun group from the NCVS data...108,000....while here you have multiple sources...over close to 20 years...without including Kleck's 2.5 million a year or the police chief data...and you say yours is the accurate number...who isn't using common sense here...

Look, I just realized something...the Justice Dept. Study...was in 1994...this was the bill clinton Justice Dept. and their number is higher than yours...

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
(Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text,PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.)

Look, I just realized something...the Justice Dept. Study...was in 1994...this was the bill clinton Justice Dept. and their number is higher than yours...

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
(Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text,PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.)

 

[turtledude]

S
I have never needed a gun for defense and neither has anyone I know. I've never heard about anyone in my neighborhood using one for defense. While it certainly does happen, it is rare. This is why they are seldom in the news.

In 1972 a blond bimbo was quoted as saying (in the most lopsided election in the last 45 years)

I CANNOT BELIEVE NIXON WON, NOBODY I KNOW VOTED FOR NIXON

well there you have it-Brain's situation is the same as everyone else's

 

[Brain357]

How about you tell me how there are 2.5 million defenses and those get reported less than the 19,000 accidental shootings? Believe me, Fox news would love to report them if they really existed.

S
I have never needed a gun for defense and neither has anyone I know. I've never heard about anyone in my neighborhood using one for defense. While it certainly does happen, it is rare. This is why they are seldom in the news.

In 1972 a blond bimbo was quoted as saying (in the most lopsided election in the last 45 years)

I CANNOT BELIEVE NIXON WON, NOBODY I KNOW VOTED FOR NIXON

well there you have it-Brain's situation is the same as everyone else's

S
I have never needed a gun for defense and neither has anyone I know. I've never heard about anyone in my neighborhood using one for defense. While it certainly does happen, it is rare. This is why they are seldom in the news.

In 1972 a blond bimbo was quoted as saying (in the most lopsided election in the last 45 years)

I CANNOT BELIEVE NIXON WON, NOBODY I KNOW VOTED FOR NIXON

well there you have it-Brain's situation is the same as everyone else's

 

[2aguy]

Kleck began his research as an anti gunner...his study was created to address all the perceived errors,of the previous studies...

It was the goal of the research reported here to remedy those flaws, to develop a credible estimate of DGU frequency, and to learn something about the nature of DGU incidents and the people who defend themselves with guns.

C. THE NATIONAL SELF-DEFENSE SURVEY



1. Methods
The present survey is the first survey ever devoted to the subject of armed self-defense. It was carefully designed to correct all of the known correctable or avoidable flaws of previous surveys which critics have identified. We use the most anonymous possible national survey format, the anonymous random digit dialed telephone survey. We did not know the identities of those who were interviewed, and made this fact clear to the Rs. We interviewed a large nationally representative sample covering all adults, age eighteen and over, in the lower forty-eight states and living in households with telephones.[42] We asked DGU questions of all Rs in our sample, asking them separately about both their own DGU experiences and those of other members of their households. We used both a five year recall period and a one year recall period. We inquired about uses of both handguns and other types of guns, and excluded occupational uses of guns and uses against animals. Finally, we asked a long series of detailed questions designed to establish exactly what Rs did with their guns; for example, if they had confronted other humans, and how had each DGU connected to a specific crime or crimes.

We consulted with North America's most experienced experts on gun-related surveys, David Bordua, James Wright, and Gary Mauser, along with survey expert Seymour Sudman, in order to craft a state-of-the-art survey instrument designed specifically to establish the frequency and nature of DGUs.[43] A professional telephone polling firm, Research Network of Tallahassee, Florida, carried out the sampling and interviewing. Only the firm's most experienced interviewers, who are listed in the acknowledgements, were used on the project. Interviews were monitored at random by survey supervisors. All interviews in which an alleged DGU was reported by the R were validated by supervisors with call-backs, along with a 20% random sample of all other interviews. Of all eligible residential telephone numbers called where a person rather than an answering machine answered, 61% resulted in a completed interview. Interviewing was carried out from February through April of 1993.

 

[2aguy]

Sorry but common sense says the numbers aren't that high. I have studies and you have studies. People have debunked your studies and mine. But common sense says it's not that high. I will go with the facts, not surveys.

sorry, you have one study and it has been explained why it is the least accurate of all of the other studies....

You have one study...I have 14....common sense would say that more research is better than one biased study...don't you think...


And the anti gunner fantasy world...

"I have never needed a gun and no one I know has needed a gun....therefore all guns should be banned...."

There are crimes comitted every day in every state....and unless you are able to not only predict the future but prevent it....you will never know until that moment if you have drawn the violent crime short straw....what a delusional way to go through life....

 

[Brain357]

Yes you have 14 with vastly different numbers. So which one is right?

What was the most people surveyed?

How many incidents were verified?

Sorry but common sense says the numbers aren't that high. I have studies and you have studies. People have debunked your studies and mine. But common sense says it's not that high. I will go with the facts, not surveys.

sorry, you have one study and it has been explained why it is the least accurate of all of the other studies....

You have one study...I have 14....common sense would say that more research is better than one biased study...don't you think...


And the anti gunner fantasy world...

"I have never needed a gun and no one I know has needed a gun....therefore all guns should be banned...."

There are crimes comitted every day in every state....and unless you are able to not only predict the future but prevent it....you will never know until that moment if you have drawn the violent crime short straw....what a delusional way to go through life....

 

[2aguy]

This is why they are seldom in the news.

Yeah...I was,thinking about this today and that is exactly what I thought....you don't see the stories in the news so they don't exist...you douse every tragedy and violent crime...so they must exist....I gave you pages of stories of guns used to save lives and stop violent crimes....and you close your eyes and refuse to admit they actually happened to real human beings....


It isn't your fault really...it is he way the liberal mind works....if you don't see it...it doesn't exist...that explains how a liberal can be against the death penalty and for abortion....and any number if liberal,fantasies....

 

[2aguy]

Yes you have 14 with vastly different numbers. So which one is right?

do you know the one thing they all have in common...of the 14 studies, conducted over close to 20 years, from both government and independent researchers, from news organizations and PH.ds in Criminology...not one of them is close to your number...and all of them are over the 700,000 number...some well over some closer to it but no where near your one number from your one study by anti gunners...

 

[Brain357]

I have not said they don't happen, but I could match every one with an accidental shooting. Why do you care so little about those hurt and killed in accidental shootings? I can also find more examples of accidental shootings than you can defenses. You gave maybe 40 from the nra site? That is far short of any surveys... Those went into last year. I have you 3 accidental shootings from a 24 hour period.

This is why they are seldom in the news.

Yeah...I was,thinking about this today and that is exactly what I thought....you don't see the stories in the news so they don't exist...you douse every tragedy and violent crime...so they must exist....I gave you pages of stories of guns used to save lives and stop violent crimes....and you close your eyes and refuse to admit they actually happened to real human beings....


It isn't your fault really...it is he way the liberal mind works....if you don't see it...it doesn't exist...that explains how a liberal can be against the death penalty and for abortion....and any number if liberal,fantasies....

 

[2aguy]

What was the most people surveyed?

How many incidents were verified?

Kleck explains his methods in detail in the links I have given you....and they are so solid, one anti gunner criminologist compliments the study at the same time he hates the result....

 

[Brain357]

You failed to answer my questions.

Yes you have 14 with vastly different numbers. So which one is right?

do you know the one thing they all have in common...of the 14 studies, conducted over close to 20 years, from both government and independent researchers, from news organizations and PH.ds in Criminology...not one of them is close to your number...and all of them are over the 700,000 number...some well over some closer to it but no where near your one number from your one study by anti gunners...

 

[Brain357]

The number has been questioned—ridiculed, really—by a number of other researchers, including David Hemenway, a professor of health policy at Harvard University and director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. In 1997, Hemenway, along with Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, published a response to the 1995 study, calling 2.5 million a “mythical number.” In the Kleck study, based on a telephone survey of 5,000 people, the authors asked whether respondents had ever used a gun, even if it wasn’t fired, to protect themselves, someone else, or their property. If they answered yes, they were asked 30 more questions about the incident.
But there are multiple problems with the data, according to Hemenway and company. One is the likelihood that the respondent is not telling the truth, and that the gun wasn’t used in self-defense, but rather to commit a crime. If you’re involved in a drug deal gone bad, and you shoot someone, you might be more likely than a jury to chalk that up to self-defense—but giving researchers a false positive.
Another problem is something inherent in most survey research, a phenomenon called telescoping. If you ask someone about incidents in the last year, the stories they tell may have happened more than a year ago. The human memory doesn’t always line up neatly with the 12-month calendar.
And, Hemenway and his co-authors argue, in any survey a small percentage of answers are just going to be wacky. The person answering the phone may be drunk or senile or just lying. Do a phone survey asking about alien abductions, and you will get nearly a 1-percent positive response, which doesn’t confirm the existence of extraterrestrials. (Or does it?!?)

What was the most people surveyed?

How many incidents were verified?

Kleck explains his methods in detail in the links I have given you....and they are so solid, one anti gunner criminologist compliments the study at the same time he hates the result....

 

[turtledude]

How about you tell me how there are 2.5 million defenses and those get reported less than the 19,000 accidental shootings? Believe me, Fox news would love to report them if they really existed.

easy, if you have any involvement in law enforcement or criminal law you'd know

example 30 years ago a mope tried to break into my apartment when I was a 3L. So I hear this guy at 2 AM in the morning. I call the police and I sneak out my back door to see what is up. a guy is trying to open my front door with a big screwdriver

SO I walk up behind him and say HEY ASSHOLE WHAT THE **** ARE YOU DOING. He turned around and made some comment about kicking my ass until he saw the walther PPK I had pointed at his face. So he drops the screwdriver and whines something idiotic when the cops come up-one of whom I knew pretty well. and the Sgt says-Hey you want us to charge him with B&E or just write him up for being D&D and then you won't have to come down to the station etc. I said whatever works for you and Sgt "Harry" says-no problem-less hassle for us, less for you. and the guy pled out the next day to being D&D and got a 50 dollar fine and time served (a day in jail) and there was NOTHING in the report about a gun

35 years ago, home for Xmas, my parents were out of town but my two brothers are home too. We are playing chess late at night when we hear what appears to be footsteps on the deck on the back side of our house (built in the side of the hill, the first floor on front is15 feet above the ground at back. So I get my shotgun and my two brothers take shotguns from the gun case in dad's study. We go into the room adjacent to the room where we heard movement and one of us flips on the outside floodlights

some asshole is standing there with a crowbar and suddenly he sees two 12 G shotguns pointing at him through a door and me, in the other door lining him up too. well he runs away, the cops come and they track the footprints in the snow but lose the guy who got to a car.

the report said-Intruder spotted on raised deck, fled upon being confronted by the sons of the homeowner

NO MENTION OF GUNS even though the Cop asked me what we would had done if the guy had actually broken through the glass door and I said-shot him with our shotguns. and the cop smiled and said-lucky for that bastard he ran

 

[2aguy]

they all are....guns are used to save lives and stop crime over 740,000 times a year....how much over is determined by their methods....

But they all agree...it is well over 740,000 times a year...all 14 studies....

As to Kleck's method...here is a sample of him explaining how he reached his numbers, correcting mistakes,in previous surveys...

The most technically sound estimates presented in Table 2 are those based on the shorter one-year recall peRiod that rely on Rs' firsthand accounts of their own experiences (person-based estimates). These estimates appear in the first two columns. They indicate that each year in the U.S. there are about 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs of all types by civilians against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million of the incidents involving use of handguns.

These estimates are larger than those derived from the best previous surveys, indicating that technical improvements in the measurement procedures have, contrary to the expectations of Cook,[47] Reiss and Roth,[48] and McDowall and Wiersema,[49] increased rather than decreased estimates of the frequency that DGUs occur. Defensive gun use is thus just another specific example of a commonplace pattern in criminological survey work, which includes victimization surveys, self-report surveys of delinquency, surveys of illicit drug use, etc.: the better the measurement procedures, the higher the estimates of controversial behaviors.[50]

The present estimates are higher than earlier ones primarily due to three significant improvements in the present survey: (1) a shorter recall period; (2) reliance on person-based information rather than just household-based information; and (3) information on how many household DGUs had been experienced in the recall period by those Rs reporting any such experiences. Using a shorter recall period undoubtedly reduced the effects of memory loss by reducing the artificial shrinkage to which earlier estimates were subject. Although telescoping was also undoubtedly reduced, and this would, by itself, tend to reduce estimates, the impact of reducing telescoping was apparently smaller than the impact of reducing case loss due to forgetting. Evidence internal to this survey directly indicates that a one year recall period yields larger estimates than a five year recall period; compare figures in the right half of Table 2 with their counterparts in the left half. This phenomenon, where less behavior is reported for a longer recall period than would be expected based on results obtained when using a shorter period, also has been observed in surveys of self-reported use of illicit drugs.[51]

 

[turtledude]

The number has been questioned—ridiculed, really—by a number of other researchers, including David Hemenway, a professor of health policy at Harvard University and director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. In 1997, Hemenway, along with Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, published a response to the 1995 study, calling 2.5 million a “mythical number.” In the Kleck study, based on a telephone survey of 5,000 people, the authors asked whether respondents had ever used a gun, even if it wasn’t fired, to protect themselves, someone else, or their property. If they answered yes, they were asked 30 more questions about the incident.
But there are multiple problems with the data, according to Hemenway and company. One is the likelihood that the respondent is not telling the truth, and that the gun wasn’t used in self-defense, but rather to commit a crime. If you’re involved in a drug deal gone bad, and you shoot someone, you might be more likely than a jury to chalk that up to self-defense—but giving researchers a false positive.
Another problem is something inherent in most survey research, a phenomenon called telescoping. If you ask someone about incidents in the last year, the stories they tell may have happened more than a year ago. The human memory doesn’t always line up neatly with the 12-month calendar.
And, Hemenway and his co-authors argue, in any survey a small percentage of answers are just going to be wacky. The person answering the phone may be drunk or senile or just lying. Do a phone survey asking about alien abductions, and you will get nearly a 1-percent positive response, which doesn’t confirm the existence of extraterrestrials. (Or does it?!?)

What was the most people surveyed?

How many incidents were verified?

Kleck explains his methods in detail in the links I have given you....and they are so solid, one anti gunner criminologist compliments the study at the same time he hates the result....

Hard core gun haters-well know to work backwards in an attempt to prove their conclusions

 

[2aguy]

Yeah...heme way is an anti gunner...and Dr. Gary Kleck and his research partner take apart his silly, biased critic of their study...

Kleck-Gertz DGU Freq Study gunsandcrime

Secondly, estimates about the characteristics of the K-G DGU cases cannot be accurate because the sample sizes for such estimates are small. That is, the number of cases yielding the DGU incidents is large, yielding small sampling error, but using these DGU cases or some subset of them as the sample means a small sample size and a large sampling error. Another example of this fallacious reasoning was Hemenway's assertion that the K-G survey must be flawed because K-G "report that 207,000 times per year the gun defender thought he wounded or killed the offender" although "we know" this number is too big in relation to data obtained from an emergency room reporting system. This was a misrepresentation by Hemenway. The fact was that K-G did not report this, cautioned against drawing such conclusions about subsets of the DGU cases, suggested that the injury claims by the respondents were too high and cautioned that no questions were asked from which the validity of the statements could be verified.

 

[Brain357]

David Hemenway

In order to argue that his 2.5 million per year self-defense guns figure is correct, Kleck has to resort to making all sorts of strange assertions. He provides no evidence for any of these claims; most appear completely at odds with reality.
a) If Kleck is correct, on each National Crime Victimization Survey, some 1,200 respondents of the approximately 90,000 adults interviewed should have had a self-defense gun use. Since only about 34 report any such use, 1,166 of these 1,200 must be deliberately lying (Kleck was outraged when I implied that any respondent might have forgotten a self-defense gun use). Previously he seemed to be claiming that these 1,166 individuals just didn't tell about their gun use; now he seems to be saying that many do not even report the incidents in which they were victimized, because they might be questioned about the self-defense gun use (But of course, the NCVS does not ask a direct question about whether or not they used a gun, let alone whether or not the gun ownership, carrying or use was legal). In addition, if Kleck is correct, none of the 88,800 NCVS individuals who have not had a gun use would report having had one.
b) Kleck argues that the reason for this incredible pattern of lying about self-defense gun uses is that respondents see little that is positive about self-defense gun use. Yet most bought their gun for self-protection, and respondents claim, almost half the time, that their gun use might have saved an innocent life.
Kleck argues that most respondents do not report their gun use to interviewers because it was illegal. But (i) it is not clear why the use should be illegal, (ii) respondents are not asked about any possible illegality, (iii) it is unlawful for the Census Bureau interviewers to report individual information to any authority, (iv)there is no evidence that any such information has ever been provided to authorities, and (v) no respondent has ever been punished. On similar surveys respondents report all sorts of real crime.
c) If Kleck is correct, the National Crime Victimization Survey, the largest, most expensive, most sophisticated self-report survey on victimization in the world, misses most gun use during crimes because respondents deliberately lie to the Bureau of Census interviewers. Yet respondents largely tell the truth on other surveys conducted by the Census.
d) If Kleck is correct, the majority of people with gun-shot wounds do not seek medical attention. Yet we see virtually no one shows up in emergency rooms with the expected sequelae of untreated wounds.

e) If Kleck is correct, in serious crimes the victim is 3-4 more likely than the offender to have and to use a gun. Yet the criminal gets to determine when and where the crime occurs.
f) If Kleck's numbers are to be believed, decent-law-abiding citizens with guns should be many times safer from homicide than similar individuals without guns. But case-control studies show precisely the opposite.

Of course, none of Kleck's claims should be believed. Instead, all we have is another example of a general statistical phenomenon-- in a survey of a rare event with some social desirability bias, extrapolation will lead to extreme overestimates. All validity checks confirm that expectation. No scientist should accept Kleck's claims about the incidence of self-defense gun use.

 

[2aguy]

More on why heme way is full of crap...

The important thing is that, in addition to the fallacy of drawing conclusions from subsets of the data, the logic of the statement is wrong simply because the emergency room data Hemenway referenced does not include information about all people suffering gunshot wounds, especially wounds suffered by criminals! Only the most gravely injured (or stupid) criminal will go to a regular medical facility for treatment of the wound.