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

[Brain357]

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..........

That is just a university law. Shouldn't even be in discussion.

 

[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.

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.......

Those laws are for handguns. They could have had long guns to defend home legally. And with proper registrations have a hand gun. Those 3 now are only about 12 million people, we are a county of over 300 million. And those 12 million could own long guns. And many could have gone through proper process to have a handgun. Your explanation only covers a small minority. And criminals are the most likely to break those laws.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Okay, you got all the NRA talking points down pat... but it's bullshit. only 2000 guns were involved in the tracking program, of which they only lost track of a few hundred. 250,000 guns a year cross the border.

So you're admitting you made up the "10" number from earlier?

 

[2aguy]

This regsitration problem which was a legal morass for law abiding citizens was still a problem up to a few years ago...and Chicago is still fighting it....

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Case

In McDonald v. City of Chicago,(2010), Chicago resident Otis McDonald, a 76 year old (in 2010) retired maintenance engineer, had lived in the Morgan Park neighborhood since buying a house there in 1971.[7] McDonald decried the decline of his neighborhood, describing it as being taken over by gangs and drug dealers.

His lawn was regularly littered with refuse and his home and garage had been broken into a combined five times, with the most recent robbery committed by a man McDonald recognized from his own neighborhood.[7]

An experienced hunter, McDonald legally owned shotguns, but believed them too unwieldy in the event of a robbery, and wanted to purchase a handgun for personal home defense.

Due to Chicago's requirement that all firearms in the city be registered, yet refusing all handgun registrations after 1982 when a citywide handgun ban was passed, he was unable to legally own a handgun.

As a result, in 2008, he joined three other Chicago residents in filing a lawsuit which became McDonald v. Chicago.[7]

 

[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..........

That is just a university law. Shouldn't even be in discussion.

Sorry Brain....police were contacted and they were in trouble....for simply defending their home....that is why it is always problematic contacting the police especially if a gun is involved, even today........let alone the 1990s......

And the campus police confiscated their guns......

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

That is not a hassle most people want to put up with.....

 

[Brain357]

This regsitration problem which was a legal morass for law abiding citizens was still a problem up to a few years ago...and Chicago is still fighting it....

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Case

In McDonald v. City of Chicago,(2010), Chicago resident Otis McDonald, a 76 year old (in 2010) retired maintenance engineer, had lived in the Morgan Park neighborhood since buying a house there in 1971.[7] McDonald decried the decline of his neighborhood, describing it as being taken over by gangs and drug dealers.

His lawn was regularly littered with refuse and his home and garage had been broken into a combined five times, with the most recent robbery committed by a man McDonald recognized from his own neighborhood.[7]

An experienced hunter, McDonald legally owned shotguns, but believed them too unwieldy in the event of a robbery, and wanted to purchase a handgun for personal home defense.

Due to Chicago's requirement that all firearms in the city be registered, yet refusing all handgun registrations after 1982 when a citywide handgun ban was passed, he was unable to legally own a handgun.

As a result, in 2008, he joined three other Chicago residents in filing a lawsuit which became McDonald v. Chicago.[7]

But did he illegally buy a handgun? Or is he actually law abiding?

 

[Brain357]

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..........

That is just a university law. Shouldn't even be in discussion.

Sorry Brain....police were contacted and they were in trouble....for simply defending their home....that is why it is always problematic contacting the police especially if a gun is involved, even today........let alone the 1990s......

And the campus police confiscated their guns......

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

That is not a hassle most people want to put up with.....

Just campus police . They are in trouble with the school, not going to jail. If they wanted to own a gun they should have gone to a different school.

 

[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..........

That is just a university law. Shouldn't even be in discussion.

Sorry Brain....police were contacted and they were in trouble....for simply defending their home....that is why it is always problematic contacting the police especially if a gun is involved, even today........let alone the 1990s......

And the campus police confiscated their guns......

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

That is not a hassle most people want to put up with.....

Just campus police . They are in trouble with the school, not going to jail. If they wanted to own a gun they should have gone to a different school.

That isn't the point Brain...you accused Kleck's study of being majority criminals, you said that it has always been legal to defend yourself in your home with a gun and that isn't true.......it doesn't matter if it is just "Campus Police," they risked being kicked out of school...a huge cost, and had their guns confiscated by those police...and they probably had to hire a lawyer...another expense....which goes to Kleck's point and quote where he points out even in the home, people were reluctant to say they used a gun for fear of legal consequences....you then said that was because they were criminals conducting criminal business....and that just is not the case.....

 

[Brain357]

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..........

That is just a university law. Shouldn't even be in discussion.

Sorry Brain....police were contacted and they were in trouble....for simply defending their home....that is why it is always problematic contacting the police especially if a gun is involved, even today........let alone the 1990s......

And the campus police confiscated their guns......

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

That is not a hassle most people want to put up with.....

Just campus police . They are in trouble with the school, not going to jail. If they wanted to own a gun they should have gone to a different school.

That isn't the point Brain...you accused Kleck's study of being majority criminals, you said that it has always been legal to defend yourself in your home with a gun and that isn't true.......it doesn't matter if it is just "Campus Police," they risked being kicked out of school...a huge cost, and had their guns confiscated by those police...and they probably had to hire a lawyer...another expense....which goes to Kleck's point and quote where he points out even in the home, people were reluctant to say they used a gun for fear of legal consequences....you then said that was because they were criminals conducting criminal business....and that just is not the case.....

Kleck said they are mostly criminals not me. These guys chose to live on campus where they cannot have a gun. They should have lived off campus. But again they aren't in trouble with the real police and hence probably didn't break any real laws.

 

[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..........

That is just a university law. Shouldn't even be in discussion.

Sorry Brain....police were contacted and they were in trouble....for simply defending their home....that is why it is always problematic contacting the police especially if a gun is involved, even today........let alone the 1990s......

And the campus police confiscated their guns......

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

That is not a hassle most people want to put up with.....

Just campus police . They are in trouble with the school, not going to jail. If they wanted to own a gun they should have gone to a different school.

That isn't the point Brain...you accused Kleck's study of being majority criminals, you said that it has always been legal to defend yourself in your home with a gun and that isn't true.......it doesn't matter if it is just "Campus Police," they risked being kicked out of school...a huge cost, and had their guns confiscated by those police...and they probably had to hire a lawyer...another expense....which goes to Kleck's point and quote where he points out even in the home, people were reluctant to say they used a gun for fear of legal consequences....you then said that was because they were criminals conducting criminal business....and that just is not the case.....

Kleck said they are mostly criminals not me. These guys chose to live on campus where they cannot have a gun. They should have lived off campus. But again they aren't in trouble with the real police and hence probably didn't break any real laws.

Campus cops are real cops......they probably have the powers to arrest on a large campus like that.....my brother graduated from the police academy with guys at the academy working as cops at a local college......

 

[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..........

That is just a university law. Shouldn't even be in discussion.

Sorry Brain....police were contacted and they were in trouble....for simply defending their home....that is why it is always problematic contacting the police especially if a gun is involved, even today........let alone the 1990s......

And the campus police confiscated their guns......

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

That is not a hassle most people want to put up with.....

Just campus police . They are in trouble with the school, not going to jail. If they wanted to own a gun they should have gone to a different school.

That isn't the point Brain...you accused Kleck's study of being majority criminals, you said that it has always been legal to defend yourself in your home with a gun and that isn't true.......it doesn't matter if it is just "Campus Police," they risked being kicked out of school...a huge cost, and had their guns confiscated by those police...and they probably had to hire a lawyer...another expense....which goes to Kleck's point and quote where he points out even in the home, people were reluctant to say they used a gun for fear of legal consequences....you then said that was because they were criminals conducting criminal business....and that just is not the case.....

Kleck said they are mostly criminals not me. These guys chose to live on campus where they cannot have a gun. They should have lived off campus. But again they aren't in trouble with the real police and hence probably didn't break any real laws.

Again....not stating the whole truth....

Kleck said they are mostly criminals not me.

He specifically state "unlawful possession of a weapon" which I have shown to you is not a criminal in the way you are trying to make it to be....you are distorting what he said...not me....The woman in Pennsylvania who took her permitted weapon into New Jersey...breaking New Jersey law was not a career criminal.....

 

[2aguy]

Here is a law abiding woman, with a legal carry permit.....but goes to the wrong state....and in the 90s it was much worse....

Notice what they say was the reason for arrest Brain......

Woman with Pa. handgun permit faces prison sentence for carrying in New Jersey NJ.com

A Philadelphia mother of two who obtained the necessary permits to carry a gun in Pennsylvania and
was arrested in New Jersey for unlawful possession of a weapon is now facing three years in prison.

Shaneen Allen, 27, obtained a license-to-carry permit and purchased a .380 Bersa Thunder handgun after she was robbed in a Philadelphia alley in July 2013, according to a report on Philly.com.
During a trip to Atlantic City last October, Allen was arrested following a routine traffic stop and was charged with unlawful possession of a weapon and possession of hollow-point bullets. Allen told Philly.com she told the police officer she had a firearm in her purse and a carry license for it.

**********************
This is exactly what Kleck was saying in your quote and the other quote you don't mention.....you are wrong......

 

[Brain357]

That is just a university law. Shouldn't even be in discussion.

Sorry Brain....police were contacted and they were in trouble....for simply defending their home....that is why it is always problematic contacting the police especially if a gun is involved, even today........let alone the 1990s......

And the campus police confiscated their guns......

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

That is not a hassle most people want to put up with.....

Just campus police . They are in trouble with the school, not going to jail. If they wanted to own a gun they should have gone to a different school.

That isn't the point Brain...you accused Kleck's study of being majority criminals, you said that it has always been legal to defend yourself in your home with a gun and that isn't true.......it doesn't matter if it is just "Campus Police," they risked being kicked out of school...a huge cost, and had their guns confiscated by those police...and they probably had to hire a lawyer...another expense....which goes to Kleck's point and quote where he points out even in the home, people were reluctant to say they used a gun for fear of legal consequences....you then said that was because they were criminals conducting criminal business....and that just is not the case.....

Kleck said they are mostly criminals not me. These guys chose to live on campus where they cannot have a gun. They should have lived off campus. But again they aren't in trouble with the real police and hence probably didn't break any real laws.

Again....not stating the whole truth....

Kleck said they are mostly criminals not me.

He specifically state "unlawful possession of a weapon" which I have shown to you is not a criminal in the way you are trying to make it to be....you are distorting what he said...not me....The woman in Pennsylvania who took her permitted weapon into New Jersey...breaking New Jersey law was not a career criminal.....

A felon with a gun is also unlawful possession of a gun. All your excuses only cover a tiny part of the population.

 

[Brain357]

Here is a law abiding woman, with a legal carry permit.....but goes to the wrong state....and in the 90s it was much worse....

Notice what they say was the reason for arrest Brain......

Woman with Pa. handgun permit faces prison sentence for carrying in New Jersey NJ.com

A Philadelphia mother of two who obtained the necessary permits to carry a gun in Pennsylvania and
was arrested in New Jersey for unlawful possession of a weapon is now facing three years in prison.

Shaneen Allen, 27, obtained a license-to-carry permit and purchased a .380 Bersa Thunder handgun after she was robbed in a Philadelphia alley in July 2013, according to a report on Philly.com.
During a trip to Atlantic City last October, Allen was arrested following a routine traffic stop and was charged with unlawful possession of a weapon and possession of hollow-point bullets. Allen told Philly.com she told the police officer she had a firearm in her purse and a carry license for it.

**********************
This is exactly what Kleck was saying in your quote and the other quote you don't mention.....you are wrong......

I don't see where she is not reporting a defense. And she is not law abiding.

Kleck does not say that, you are making it up. From what kleck says all the unlawful possession of a gun could be felons. I don't have to make things up for my side of this. He clearly states most defenders are involved in criminal activity. So by definition not law abiding. Even your trying to candy coat it only covers a tiny percent of instances.

 

[2aguy]

most defenders are involved in criminal activity.

Sorry, that is dishonest...as the examples above show.....he doesn't say they are criminals....

his work again....

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

Even under the best of circumstances, reporting the use of a gun for self-protection would be an extremely sensitive and legally controversial matter for either of two reasons. As with other forms of forceful resistance, the defensive act itself, regardless of the characteristics of any weapon used, might constitute an unlawful assault or at least the R might believe that others, including either legal authorities or the researchers, could regard it that way. Resistance with a gun also involves additional elements of sensitivity.

Because guns are legally regulated, a victim's possession of the weapon, either in general or at the time of the DGU, might itself be unlawful, either in fact or in the mind of a crime victim who used one. More likely, lay persons with a limited knowledge of the extremely complicated law of either self-defense or firearms regulation are unlikely to know for sure whether their defensive actions or their gun possession was lawful.

It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves.[26] In short, Rs are merely given the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for an R to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident.

Further, Rs in the NCVS are not even asked the general self-protection question unless they already independently indicated that they had been a victim of a crime. This means that any DGUs associated with crimes the Rs did not want to talk about would remain hidden. It has been estimated that the NCVS may catch less than one-twelfth of spousal assaults and one-thirty-third of rapes,[27] thereby missing nearly all DGUs associated with such crimes.

In the context of a non anonymous survey conducted by the federal government, an R who reports a DGU may believe that he is placing himself in serious legal jeopardy. For example, consider the issue of the location of crimes. For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are relatively easy to get)[28], the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony. In at least ten states, it is punishable by a punitively mandatory minimum prison sentence.[29] Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home,[30] i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,[31] the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.

Even for crimes that occurred in the victim's home, such as a burglary, possession of a gun would still often be unlawful or of unknown legal status; because the R had not complied with or could not be sure he had complied with all legal requirements concerning registration of the gun's acquisition or possession, permits for purchase, licensing of home possession, storage requirements, and so on. In light of all these considerations, it may be unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of Rs who have used a gun defensively would be willing to report it to NCVS interviewers.

The NCVS was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection.

 

[2aguy]

And this is where Kleck makes the distinction between criminal uses of guns and non criminal uses....

All of these estimates are well short of even the most conservative estimates of DGUs in Table 2. The best estimates of DGUs (first two columns), even if compared to the more generous estimates of gun crimes, are 4.6 times higher than the crime counts for all guns, and 4.2 times higher for handguns, or 3.9 and 3.4, respectively, if the more conservative B estimates of DGU are used. In sum, DGUs are about three to five times as common as criminal uses, even using generous estimates of gun crimes.

 

[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.......

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?

Brain....could you link to this quote again.....?

 

[2aguy]

And another point where he clarrifies his position...

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.

Consequently, police never hear about the bulk of successful defensive gun uses, instead hearing mostly about an unrepresentative minority of them containing a disproportionately large number of failures. Further, even when they do receive a report of a crime that in fact involved a gun-wielding victim, the victim has strong legal reasons for leaving their own gun use out of their account of the crime. Since most defensive gun uses occur away from the victim's home, and few victims have the required permits for carrying concealed weapons in public, most gun uses probably involved a crime on the part of the victim.

again...permitting problems, not actual criminal business.....and again this report was done in the 90s before 11.1 million people had permits to carry weapons....

 

[Brain357]

most defenders are involved in criminal activity.

Sorry, that is dishonest...as the examples above show.....he doesn't say they are criminals....

his work again....

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

Even under the best of circumstances, reporting the use of a gun for self-protection would be an extremely sensitive and legally controversial matter for either of two reasons. As with other forms of forceful resistance, the defensive act itself, regardless of the characteristics of any weapon used, might constitute an unlawful assault or at least the R might believe that others, including either legal authorities or the researchers, could regard it that way. Resistance with a gun also involves additional elements of sensitivity.

Because guns are legally regulated, a victim's possession of the weapon, either in general or at the time of the DGU, might itself be unlawful, either in fact or in the mind of a crime victim who used one. More likely, lay persons with a limited knowledge of the extremely complicated law of either self-defense or firearms regulation are unlikely to know for sure whether their defensive actions or their gun possession was lawful.

It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves.[26] In short, Rs are merely given the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for an R to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident.

Further, Rs in the NCVS are not even asked the general self-protection question unless they already independently indicated that they had been a victim of a crime. This means that any DGUs associated with crimes the Rs did not want to talk about would remain hidden. It has been estimated that the NCVS may catch less than one-twelfth of spousal assaults and one-thirty-third of rapes,[27] thereby missing nearly all DGUs associated with such crimes.

In the context of a non anonymous survey conducted by the federal government, an R who reports a DGU may believe that he is placing himself in serious legal jeopardy. For example, consider the issue of the location of crimes. For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are relatively easy to get)[28], the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony. In at least ten states, it is punishable by a punitively mandatory minimum prison sentence.[29] Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home,[30] i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,[31] the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.

Even for crimes that occurred in the victim's home, such as a burglary, possession of a gun would still often be unlawful or of unknown legal status; because the R had not complied with or could not be sure he had complied with all legal requirements concerning registration of the gun's acquisition or possession, permits for purchase, licensing of home possession, storage requirements, and so on. In light of all these considerations, it may be unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of Rs who have used a gun defensively would be willing to report it to NCVS interviewers.

The NCVS was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection.

People involved in criminal activity are criminals by definition. And are not law abiding.

 

[Brain357]

And this is where Kleck makes the distinction between criminal uses of guns and non criminal uses....

All of these estimates are well short of even the most conservative estimates of DGUs in Table 2. The best estimates of DGUs (first two columns), even if compared to the more generous estimates of gun crimes, are 4.6 times higher than the crime counts for all guns, and 4.2 times higher for handguns, or 3.9 and 3.4, respectively, if the more conservative B estimates of DGU are used. In sum, DGUs are about three to five times as common as criminal uses, even using generous estimates of gun crimes.

Like I said before, armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals. So what?