French gun control...yeah...not so much...

[Brain357]

And here is how John Lott, another researcher in the field responded to the question of defensive gun uses.....

John R. Lott Jr. <[email protected]>

Feb 3 (9 days ago)

to me

Thanks for the note, Bill. My 2002 survey discussed in The Bias Against Guns is different than Gary’s in some ways and similar in terms of the total defensive gun uses. As far as we could tell, all the people who reported using guns defensively were law-abiding citizens and all of our cases were either in a home or on a person’s property. Of course, there were relative few permits issued back then. New Report from Crime Prevention Research Center shows 11.1 million Americans Hold Concealed Carry Permits - Crime Prevention Research Center

I hope that this helps.

Thanks.

John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D.
President
Crime Prevention Research Center
Crime Prevention Research Center - To subscribe to the CPRC write us at info crimeresearch.org put subscribe in subject line
[email protected]

As far as we could tell means very little. That just means nobody stated they were a criminal. Ask specifically what they did to weed out people involved in criminal activity.

 

[2aguy]

How about you prove they were criminals....since you are making the accusation....try emailing Lott...he emailed me so he would probably do the same for you....or try Kleck.....since you are attacking his research....

 

[Brain357]

How about you prove they were criminals....since you are making the accusation....try emailing Lott...he emailed me so he would probably do the same for you....or try Kleck.....since you are attacking his research....

Kleck has already stated most are involved in criminal activity. That's enough for me. And you rave about how good he is.

 

[2aguy]

How about you prove they were criminals....since you are making the accusation....try emailing Lott...he emailed me so he would probably do the same for you....or try Kleck.....since you are attacking his research....

Kleck has already stated most are involved in criminal activity. That's enough for me. And you rave about how good he is.

This is why debating anti gunners is hard sometimes....they are dishonest and distort the truth...

 

[Brain357]

How about you prove they were criminals....since you are making the accusation....try emailing Lott...he emailed me so he would probably do the same for you....or try Kleck.....since you are attacking his research....

Kleck has already stated most are involved in criminal activity. That's enough for me. And you rave about how good he is.

This is why debating anti gunners is hard sometimes....they are dishonest and distort the truth...

Sorry but that is what you are doing this time. His quote is very clear. For whatever reason you are making up stuff. Given the quote and the context it is clear kleck thinks most defenders are involved in criminal activity.

 

[2aguy]

How about you prove they were criminals....since you are making the accusation....try emailing Lott...he emailed me so he would probably do the same for you....or try Kleck.....since you are attacking his research....

Kleck has already stated most are involved in criminal activity. That's enough for me. And you rave about how good he is.

This is why debating anti gunners is hard sometimes....they are dishonest and distort the truth...

Sorry but that is what you are doing this time. His quote is very clear. For whatever reason you are making up stuff. Given the quote and the context it is clear kleck thinks most defenders are involved in criminal activity.

no...again more dishonesty......it is clear he is talking about law abiding citizens who are reluctant to admit having to use guns in self defense....in the 90s for fear of the consequences....both legal and financial..........but don't worry brain.....the 90s are when Americans began to get their right to bear arms enforced...it started with Florida...and now every state has some form of legal protection for people carrying guns for self defense...to the tune of over 11.1 million people with permits to carry a gun...and quite a few more in states that don't require a permit.......

 

[Brain357]

How about you prove they were criminals....since you are making the accusation....try emailing Lott...he emailed me so he would probably do the same for you....or try Kleck.....since you are attacking his research....

Kleck has already stated most are involved in criminal activity. That's enough for me. And you rave about how good he is.

This is why debating anti gunners is hard sometimes....they are dishonest and distort the truth...

Sorry but that is what you are doing this time. His quote is very clear. For whatever reason you are making up stuff. Given the quote and the context it is clear kleck thinks most defenders are involved in criminal activity.

no...again more dishonesty......it is clear he is talking about law abiding citizens who are reluctant to admit having to use guns in self defense....in the 90s for fear of the consequences....both legal and financial..........but don't worry brain.....the 90s are when Americans began to get their right to bear arms enforced...it started with Florida...and now every state has some form of legal protection for people carrying guns for self defense...to the tune of over 11.1 million people with permits to carry a gun...and quite a few more in states that don't require a permit.......

By definition they are not law abiding citizens.
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

His quote is VERY clear. The gun-using victim is typically involved in criminal behavior. So by definition not law abiding. Why should I care that criminals are defending against criminals?

 

[2aguy]

such as unlawful gun possession,

Not drug dealing, not breaking and entering...carrying a gun for self defense from actual criminals....before the law caught up with our right to bear arms....

 

[Brain357]

such as unlawful gun possession,

Not drug dealing, not breaking and entering...carrying a gun for self defense from actual criminals....before the law caught up with our right to bear arms....

Do we really have to keep going over this?

1. Unlawful gun possession is just one example he gives. He is NOT say they are all unlawful gun possession. Hence why he says such as. Do you really not understand that?
2. Unlawful gun possession includes felons.
3. His quote is in the context of why his study has more home burglaries defended that year than were reported. So we are not talking about carrying laws. And it has always been legal to defend your home.
4. By definition someone involved in criminal activity is not law abiding.

So again you are wrong. Stop making things up and accept what kleck said.

 

[2aguy]

such as unlawful gun possession,

Not drug dealing, not breaking and entering...carrying a gun for self defense from actual criminals....before the law caught up with our right to bear arms....

Do we really have to keep going over this?

1. Unlawful gun possession is just one example he gives. He is NOT say they are all unlawful gun possession. Hence why he says such as. Do you really not understand that?
2. Unlawful gun possession includes felons.
3. His quote is in the context of why his study has more home burglaries defended that year than were reported. So we are not talking about carrying laws. And it has always been legal to defend your home.
4. By definition someone involved in criminal activity is not law abiding.

So again you are wrong. Stop making things up and accept what kleck said.

1. that is the only example he gives and if there were bigger, more important aspects of self defense...oh say...like drug dealers defending their stash, he would have used that instead of "unlawful gun possession" and looking at the way he phrased it in your selective quote he says Unlawful....not Illegal....and that isn't a coincidence.....

2. And unlawful gun possession in this case is specifically about the the laws leading into the 1990s and the inability of Americans to exercise their right to carry guns for protection....he never mentions felons at all.....

3. And it has not always been legal to confront a criminal in your home....why do you think they had to pass Castle Doctrine laws....because before them...you were expected to retreat when threatened even in your home...and if you defended yourself in your home you had to show you could not retreat....that is why they changed the laws.....and still why shooting people in your home can be legally and financially catastrophic even if the scumbag is a career criminal....

4. Yes, and the Americans who sat at the lunch counters, or who helped fugitive slaves escape the south were engaged in criminal activity as well....criminal activity is not all the same.......so try to be honest about that.....

 

[Brain357]

such as unlawful gun possession,

Not drug dealing, not breaking and entering...carrying a gun for self defense from actual criminals....before the law caught up with our right to bear arms....

Do we really have to keep going over this?

1. Unlawful gun possession is just one example he gives. He is NOT say they are all unlawful gun possession. Hence why he says such as. Do you really not understand that?
2. Unlawful gun possession includes felons.
3. His quote is in the context of why his study has more home burglaries defended that year than were reported. So we are not talking about carrying laws. And it has always been legal to defend your home.
4. By definition someone involved in criminal activity is not law abiding.

So again you are wrong. Stop making things up and accept what kleck said.

1. that is the only example he gives and if there were bigger, more important aspects of self defense...oh say...like drug dealers defending their stash, he would have used that instead of "unlawful gun possession" and looking at the way he phrased it in your selective quote he says Unlawful....not Illegal....and that isn't a coincidence.....

2. And unlawful gun possession in this case is specifically about the the laws leading into the 1990s and the inability of Americans to exercise their right to carry guns for protection....he never mentions felons at all.....

3. And it has not always been legal to confront a criminal in your home....why do you think they had to pass Castle Doctrine laws....because before them...you were expected to retreat when threatened even in your home...and if you defended yourself in your home you had to show you could not retreat....that is why they changed the laws.....and still why shooting people in your home can be legally and financially catastrophic even if the scumbag is a career criminal....

4. Yes, and the Americans who sat at the lunch counters, or who helped fugitive slaves escape the south were engaged in criminal activity as well....criminal activity is not all the same.......so try to be honest about that.....

Why do you continue to ignore reality?
1. You are making all of that up. You have no idea why he gave only one example. Share a link where he says any of that or you are full of crap.
2. Again he is talking about home burglary. Carrying has nothing to do with it. Tired of telling you this over and over.
3.He is explaining why so many go unreported. That means nobody would have been shot. Please share a link showing where it was illegal in the 90s to defend your home from a criminal with a gun. If you can't do that you are full of crap again.
4. That doesn't change that you cannot call them law abiding.

 

[Brain357]

such as unlawful gun possession,

Not drug dealing, not breaking and entering...carrying a gun for self defense from actual criminals....before the law caught up with our right to bear arms....

Do we really have to keep going over this?

1. Unlawful gun possession is just one example he gives. He is NOT say they are all unlawful gun possession. Hence why he says such as. Do you really not understand that?
2. Unlawful gun possession includes felons.
3. His quote is in the context of why his study has more home burglaries defended that year than were reported. So we are not talking about carrying laws. And it has always been legal to defend your home.
4. By definition someone involved in criminal activity is not law abiding.

So again you are wrong. Stop making things up and accept what kleck said.

1. that is the only example he gives and if there were bigger, more important aspects of self defense...oh say...like drug dealers defending their stash, he would have used that instead of "unlawful gun possession" and looking at the way he phrased it in your selective quote he says Unlawful....not Illegal....and that isn't a coincidence.....

2. And unlawful gun possession in this case is specifically about the the laws leading into the 1990s and the inability of Americans to exercise their right to carry guns for protection....he never mentions felons at all.....

3. And it has not always been legal to confront a criminal in your home....why do you think they had to pass Castle Doctrine laws....because before them...you were expected to retreat when threatened even in your home...and if you defended yourself in your home you had to show you could not retreat....that is why they changed the laws.....and still why shooting people in your home can be legally and financially catastrophic even if the scumbag is a career criminal....

4. Yes, and the Americans who sat at the lunch counters, or who helped fugitive slaves escape the south were engaged in criminal activity as well....criminal activity is not all the same.......so try to be honest about that.....

Also your own 1 and 3 counter each other. If you think the vast majority are unlawful gun possession, then they have to be felons since most are defending the home and not carrying. It has never been illegal to possess a gun in your home unless you are a felon.

 

[2aguy]

Brain...this is how wrong you are....Kleck, on of 19 researchers into the topic points out in his study that even reporting gun use in the home is legally risky.......and no, it has been illegal to own a gun in your home in a majority of places up to the 1990s and even today....Chicago, you could not register a handgun in the city...hence, using one to defend your home was a crime, dittos New York if you didn't go through the expensive and years long process to register your guns....no guns were allowed in Washington D.C. so if you used a gun to defend your home.....even if you didn't shoot the gun but just scared off the intruder....which is what Kleck points out when he says using a gun even at home was legaly dangerous........you would have been in "unlawful possession" of a gun....but not a true criminal....

So you are wrong Brain...on all counts....and here...this story was from New York, not that long ago....a guy used a gun...in his own home, to shoot a home invader who charged him........guess who went to jail.....

Brooklyn Dad Facing Jail for Shooting Intruder - ABC News

In Brooklyn, N.Y., Ron Dixon and his family were jolted awake by a noise early one morning.

There was a stranger in the house. When Dixon saw the intruder enter his young son's room, he grabbed his 9 mm pistol, loaded it, and moved to the entrance of the boy's room. He saw the man rifling through drawers, and said, "What are you doing in my house?"

Dixon says the burglar then moved toward him. He told his girlfriend, Tricia Best, to call the police.

She did, and as she was on the line with the 911 operator, Best heard shots ring out.

Dixon had shot the intruder. "I fired at him twice. He fell down the stairs and he lay at the bottom of the stairs," Dixon said.

The intruder, Ivan Thompson, survived. He's a career criminal who's been arrested 19 times and convicted of criminal trespass, burglary and attempted assault. Thompson is now being held in New York's Rikers Island jail.

The local paper called Dixon a hero. He is a Navy veteran, a father of two, and had never been in trouble with the law.

‘Hero’ Headed to Rikers?

So how was the hero treated? He was arrested and charged with "criminal possession of a weapon" — threatened with up to a year in jail, because his gun was unlicensed.

The district attorney did offer Dixon a deal — if he pleaded guilty they'd just put a misdemeanor on his record and lock him up for just four weekends. Guess where? … Rikers Island.

*****************************

Kleck is addressing this when he talks about the legal problem of using a gun even in your home and being in "unlawful" possession of a gun...the quote you don't use by Kleck....this guy is not a criminal....he was going through the process of getting his guns registered......

But.....because he came from a state where he could legally own guns to New York where he had to jump through legal hoops to own them....he got caught in the middle and was arrested.....


What are the legal and financial consequences.....

The district attorney did offer Dixon a deal — if he pleaded guilty they'd just put a misdemeanor on his record and lock him up for just four weekends. Guess where? … Rikers Island.

Dixon turned down the plea bargain and tested his luck in court. He said he couldn't pay his mortgage if he had to spend weekends in jail. "I work at a Wall Street firm. I do 40 hours on the weekend as well as during the week," Dixon said, adding, "That might mean that I would be out of a job."



Dixon's concerns didn't sway prosecutor Charles Hynes. Hynes wouldn't talk to 20/20 but he has said of Dixon's case, "You get caught with a [unlicensed] gun in Brooklyn, you're going to do jail time."

Dixon said he had bought the gun because he had been robbed at gunpoint in Florida.


Dixon said he paid a gun law consultant $500 to help him with the paperwork to get a license, but the consultant took his money and went out of business.

Dixon's neighbors are outraged by what's happened.

"He shouldn't get no jail at all. He shouldn't — because he was protecting his family and his house," said a man who lives on Dixon's street.

Come on. Prosecutors are allowed discretion. When the career criminal, who was in Dixon's house, got his first conviction, he got probation, no jail time, but Dixon has to go to jail?


************************

And in the 1990s this legal quagmire was even worse for law abiding citizens especially in large, crime ridden, democrat controlled cities.......so again Brain, you are wrong.......
defending yourself in your home was never "always legal" and because of anti gunners it was both financially and legally problematic even in legitimate cases of self defense....especially in cities like New York, Chicago, D.C. and the entire state of California...even now they are resisting issuing concealed carry permits....

And again, this legal nightmare was even worse in the 90s when Kleck did his study....so no brain, the majority of respondents to these 19 surveys were not criminals....and it hasn't "always been legal" to use a gun in your own home......they were law abiding citizens using guns for self defense......

 

[Brain357]

Brain...this is how wrong you are....Kleck, on of 19 researchers into the topic points out in his study that even reporting gun use in the home is legally risky.......and no, it has been illegal to own a gun in your home in a majority of places up to the 1990s and even today....Chicago, you could not register a handgun in the city...hence, using one to defend your home was a crime, dittos New York if you didn't go through the expensive and years long process to register your guns....no guns were allowed in Washington D.C. so if you used a gun to defend your home.....even if you didn't shoot the gun but just scared off the intruder....which is what Kleck points out when he says using a gun even at home was legaly dangerous........you would have been in "unlawful possession" of a gun....but not a true criminal....

So you are wrong Brain...on all counts....and here...this story was from New York, not that long ago....a guy used a gun...in his own home, to shoot a home invader who charged him........guess who went to jail.....

Brooklyn Dad Facing Jail for Shooting Intruder - ABC News

In Brooklyn, N.Y., Ron Dixon and his family were jolted awake by a noise early one morning.

There was a stranger in the house. When Dixon saw the intruder enter his young son's room, he grabbed his 9 mm pistol, loaded it, and moved to the entrance of the boy's room. He saw the man rifling through drawers, and said, "What are you doing in my house?"

Dixon says the burglar then moved toward him. He told his girlfriend, Tricia Best, to call the police.

She did, and as she was on the line with the 911 operator, Best heard shots ring out.

Dixon had shot the intruder. "I fired at him twice. He fell down the stairs and he lay at the bottom of the stairs," Dixon said.

The intruder, Ivan Thompson, survived. He's a career criminal who's been arrested 19 times and convicted of criminal trespass, burglary and attempted assault. Thompson is now being held in New York's Rikers Island jail.

The local paper called Dixon a hero. He is a Navy veteran, a father of two, and had never been in trouble with the law.

‘Hero’ Headed to Rikers?

So how was the hero treated? He was arrested and charged with "criminal possession of a weapon" — threatened with up to a year in jail, because his gun was unlicensed.

The district attorney did offer Dixon a deal — if he pleaded guilty they'd just put a misdemeanor on his record and lock him up for just four weekends. Guess where? … Rikers Island.

*****************************

Kleck is addressing this when he talks about the legal problem of using a gun even in your home and being in "unlawful" possession of a gun...the quote you don't use by Kleck....this guy is not a criminal....he was going through the process of getting his guns registered......

But.....because he came from a state where he could legally own guns to New York where he had to jump through legal hoops to own them....he got caught in the middle and was arrested.....

That is an interesting point finally, but still a minority of the population. And those places have stricter laws on handguns, not long guns. So your explanation doesn't cut it again.

Also they still would not be law abiding.

Your example he actually shot someone and hence was reported. Kleck was explaining why so many aren't reported.

 

[2aguy]

As to this specifically....it is perfectly understandable given the example above if you use a gun to scare off a home invader, no one shot, no one dead, and your gun wasn't registered, or you didn't know if it was legal, to not report the gun use to the police.....because of the risk of jail, and the financial hit you would take....

3.He is explaining why so many go unreported. That means nobody would have been shot. Please share a link showing where it was illegal in the 90s to defend your home from a criminal with a gun. If you can't do that you are full of crap again.

I just showed you where it was illegal to use a gun in the 2000s......

So again....you are just wrong Brain......

 

[2aguy]

Here Brain....Nov. 13, 2013...........someone used a gun to scare off an intruder........and got caught because it wasn't allowed.....no one shot, no one killed.....

But steep consequences......

Gonzaga Univ. puts students on probation for using gun to scare off intruder - CBS News

(CBS/AP) SPOKANE, Wash. - Gonzaga University in Spokane, Wash. has placed two students on probation for violating a weapons policy after one of them displayed a gun to drive off an intruder at their apartment.

Seniors Erik Fagan and Daniel McIntosh were informed Sunday of the probation, which will be in place for the rest of their time at the university, reports CBS affiliate KREM. The terms of the probation allows them to remain in the school. They had been facing expulsion. Both plan to appeal.


The Spokesman-Review reports a man came to their apartment door Oct. 24 demanding money and trying to force his way inside. He left when McIntosh showed he had a pistol.


According to KREM, the man was later arrested.


Campus police later took the pistol and a shotgun belonging to Fagan.


Gonzaga students are not allowed to have guns in university-owned housing.


Following the incident, the president of Gonzaga University, Thayne McCulloh, acknowledged in an e-mail to students Saturday that multiple calls had come in to reevaluate the school's policies on guns.


McCulloh said, as a Jesuit institution dedicated to thoughtful evaluation of complex social issues, he believes this is an opportunity to objectively re-examine their firearms policy, reports the station.


*****************

So again Brain....you are wrong.....even today it isn't always legal to defend yourself in your own home with a gun..........especially in democrat controlled cities........and they weren't criminals...........they violated campus policy

 

[Brain357]

Here Brain....Nov. 13, 2013...........someone used a gun to scare off an intruder........and got caught because it wasn't allowed.....no one shot, no one killed.....

But steep consequences......

Gonzaga Univ. puts students on probation for using gun to scare off intruder - CBS News

(CBS/AP) SPOKANE, Wash. - Gonzaga University in Spokane, Wash. has placed two students on probation for violating a weapons policy after one of them displayed a gun to drive off an intruder at their apartment.

Seniors Erik Fagan and Daniel McIntosh were informed Sunday of the probation, which will be in place for the rest of their time at the university, reports CBS affiliate KREM. The terms of the probation allows them to remain in the school. They had been facing expulsion. Both plan to appeal.


The Spokesman-Review reports a man came to their apartment door Oct. 24 demanding money and trying to force his way inside. He left when McIntosh showed he had a pistol.


According to KREM, the man was later arrested.


Campus police later took the pistol and a shotgun belonging to Fagan.


Gonzaga students are not allowed to have guns in university-owned housing.


Following the incident, the president of Gonzaga University, Thayne McCulloh, acknowledged in an e-mail to students Saturday that multiple calls had come in to reevaluate the school's policies on guns.


McCulloh said, as a Jesuit institution dedicated to thoughtful evaluation of complex social issues, he believes this is an opportunity to objectively re-examine their firearms policy, reports the station.


*****************

So again Brain....you are wrong.....even today it isn't always legal to defend yourself in your own home with a gun..........especially in democrat controlled cities........

That is a university. They aren't going to jail. They should have gone to a different school if they wanted to be armed.

 

[Brain357]

As to this specifically....it is perfectly understandable given the example above if you use a gun to scare off a home invader, no one shot, no one dead, and your gun wasn't registered, or you didn't know if it was legal, to not report the gun use to the police.....because of the risk of jail, and the financial hit you would take....

3.He is explaining why so many go unreported. That means nobody would have been shot. Please share a link showing where it was illegal in the 90s to defend your home from a criminal with a gun. If you can't do that you are full of crap again.

I just showed you where it was illegal to use a gun in the 2000s......

So again....you are just wrong Brain......

He was clearly not law abiding. And it was legal in the vast majority of places. Your explanation covers a small minority.

 

[2aguy]

Brain....your point was that it was always legal to use a gun in your home......you are wrong...and that was Kleck's point.........especially in the 90s....those guys used a gun to drive off an attacker, didn't shoot, didn't kill......and were punished for it....they weren't criminals..........

 

[2aguy]

As to this specifically....it is perfectly understandable given the example above if you use a gun to scare off a home invader, no one shot, no one dead, and your gun wasn't registered, or you didn't know if it was legal, to not report the gun use to the police.....because of the risk of jail, and the financial hit you would take....

3.He is explaining why so many go unreported. That means nobody would have been shot. Please share a link showing where it was illegal in the 90s to defend your home from a criminal with a gun. If you can't do that you are full of crap again.

I just showed you where it was illegal to use a gun in the 2000s......

So again....you are just wrong Brain......

He was clearly not law abiding. And it was legal in the vast majority of places. Your explanation covers a small minority.

Your explanation covers a small minority

Right off the top of my head my "explanation" covers Chicago, New York and Washington D.C. three major poplulation centers in the United States....where it was either against the law or almost impossible to own a gun in the home....which is what Kleck's quote you don't use shows............imagine when I have the time to research other cities.......

YOur point about criminals and Kleck's study is wrong Brain.......