Man gets out of prison after 30 years on murder conviction, murders again 2 days later....

[Wilbur Right]

Indeed, the latter explanation is supported by a pair of private surveysconducted by Hemenway in 1996 and 1999, in which respondents were asked to describe DGUs in their own words, found that the majority of defensive gun uses were both illegal and provided no social benefit. Across these two large national samples of randomly selected telephone numbers, the conclusion was overwhelming: “Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self-defense. Most self-reported self-defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society.”

The surveys also found that when someone uses a gun in self defense, it is often part of an escalating hostile interaction — one in which both participants are likely to be responsible for th: e event that initially prompted the DGU. One male respondent who reported a defensive gun use described an incident as follows: “I was watching a movie and he interrupted me. I yelled at him that I was going to shoot him and he ran to his car.” Another respondent pulled out a gun to resolve a conflict with his neighbor: “I was on my porch and this man threw a beer in my face so I got my gun.”

It is not at all clear that cases such as these are in the public interest — let alone constitute legitimate defensive gun use. After all, these incidents are substantially different from a situation in which a victim is taken by surprise, such as during a street mugging.

In his new NCVS study, Hemenway also found that defensive gun use is exceedingly infrequent. While smaller private surveys estimated that there are up to 2.5 million DGUs on an annual basis, the NCVS data indicates that victims used guns defensively in less than 1 percent of attempted or completed crimes, with an annual total of less than 70,000.

 

[HenryBHough]

What must be puzzling those who released him......why did he wait so long?

 

[Wilbur Right]

In his new NCVS study, Hemenway also found that defensive gun use is exceedingly infrequent. While smaller private surveys estimated that there are up to 2.5 million DGUs on an annual basis, the NCVS data indicates that victims used guns defensively in less than 1 percent of attempted or completed crimes, with an annual total of less than 70,000.



Worth repeating......again and again
An annual total of DGUs of about 70,000.
That I believe.

 

[Wilbur Right]

I know gun nutters. You are going to trot out bill Clinton right?
You all hate him. But it's a love hate thing. Right? LMAO.

 

[2aguy]

Indeed, the latter explanation is supported by a pair of private surveysconducted by Hemenway in 1996 and 1999, in which respondents were asked to describe DGUs in their own words, found that the majority of defensive gun uses were both illegal and provided no social benefit. Across these two large national samples of randomly selected telephone numbers, the conclusion was overwhelming: “Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self-defense. Most self-reported self-defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society.”

The surveys also found that when someone uses a gun in self defense, it is often part of an escalating hostile interaction — one in which both participants are likely to be responsible for th: e event that initially prompted the DGU. One male respondent who reported a defensive gun use described an incident as follows: “I was watching a movie and he interrupted me. I yelled at him that I was going to shoot him and he ran to his car.” Another respondent pulled out a gun to resolve a conflict with his neighbor: “I was on my porch and this man threw a beer in my face so I got my gun.”

It is not at all clear that cases such as these are in the public interest — let alone constitute legitimate defensive gun use. After all, these incidents are substantially different from a situation in which a victim is taken by surprise, such as during a street mugging.

In his new NCVS study, Hemenway also found that defensive gun use is exceedingly infrequent. While smaller private surveys estimated that there are up to 2.5 million DGUs on an annual basis, the NCVS data indicates that victims used guns defensively in less than 1 percent of attempted or completed crimes, with an annual total of less than 70,000.

Hemenway is a hack.....his research is based on the National Crime Victimization Survey....you do understand that it isn't a study on defensive gun use right?

You do realize that it fails to accurately report on the very crimes it was created to study...right?

The only reason the anti gunners cling to the NCVS is because it is the only study, the only one, that puts defensive gun uses under 100,000 a year...the other 16-18 studies put it over 775,000 at the lowest and over 3 million at the highest.

 

[2aguy]

Indeed, the latter explanation is supported by a pair of private surveysconducted by Hemenway in 1996 and 1999, in which respondents were asked to describe DGUs in their own words, found that the majority of defensive gun uses were both illegal and provided no social benefit. Across these two large national samples of randomly selected telephone numbers, the conclusion was overwhelming: “Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self-defense. Most self-reported self-defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society.”

The surveys also found that when someone uses a gun in self defense, it is often part of an escalating hostile interaction — one in which both participants are likely to be responsible for th: e event that initially prompted the DGU. One male respondent who reported a defensive gun use described an incident as follows: “I was watching a movie and he interrupted me. I yelled at him that I was going to shoot him and he ran to his car.” Another respondent pulled out a gun to resolve a conflict with his neighbor: “I was on my porch and this man threw a beer in my face so I got my gun.”

It is not at all clear that cases such as these are in the public interest — let alone constitute legitimate defensive gun use. After all, these incidents are substantially different from a situation in which a victim is taken by surprise, such as during a street mugging.

In his new NCVS study, Hemenway also found that defensive gun use is exceedingly infrequent. While smaller private surveys estimated that there are up to 2.5 million DGUs on an annual basis, the NCVS data indicates that victims used guns defensively in less than 1 percent of attempted or completed crimes, with an annual total of less than 70,000.

The NCVS is not a gun study....it does not use the word gun in it...it does not ask one question about defensive use of guns........and on top of that, it gets the other questions wrong when it tries to find out about the actual crimes it is supposed to be researching...

See wilbur....hemenway used to work for Handgun control inc. he is a rabid anti gunner who will lie about the research to push his anti gun agenda.....

From the Daily Kos....hardly pro gun....

The Daily Kos on why the NCVS is wrong...
Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study

The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;

2) the study does not track every type of crime;

3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;

4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;

5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;

6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.


Just how dumb do you have to be to cite a study to support your anti gun position when the study you cite is not a gun study, and never even uses the word gun anywhere in the study...

Are you that mentally ill?

 

[2aguy]

Indeed, the latter explanation is supported by a pair of private surveysconducted by Hemenway in 1996 and 1999, in which respondents were asked to describe DGUs in their own words, found that the majority of defensive gun uses were both illegal and provided no social benefit. Across these two large national samples of randomly selected telephone numbers, the conclusion was overwhelming: “Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self-defense. Most self-reported self-defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society.”

The surveys also found that when someone uses a gun in self defense, it is often part of an escalating hostile interaction — one in which both participants are likely to be responsible for th: e event that initially prompted the DGU. One male respondent who reported a defensive gun use described an incident as follows: “I was watching a movie and he interrupted me. I yelled at him that I was going to shoot him and he ran to his car.” Another respondent pulled out a gun to resolve a conflict with his neighbor: “I was on my porch and this man threw a beer in my face so I got my gun.”

It is not at all clear that cases such as these are in the public interest — let alone constitute legitimate defensive gun use. After all, these incidents are substantially different from a situation in which a victim is taken by surprise, such as during a street mugging.

In his new NCVS study, Hemenway also found that defensive gun use is exceedingly infrequent. While smaller private surveys estimated that there are up to 2.5 million DGUs on an annual basis, the NCVS data indicates that victims used guns defensively in less than 1 percent of attempted or completed crimes, with an annual total of less than 70,000.

So.....here is another look at how stupid the NCVS is at actually trying to do the job it is supposed to be doing...

We’ve Been Measuring Rape All Wrong

And another reason to not use the NCVS...they can't even count those things they are actually studying correctly, let alone something like guns that they aren't actually studying...

National Crime Victimization Survey A new report finds that the Justice Department has been undercounting instances of rape and sexual assault.

How helpful, then, that the Justice Department asked the National Research Council (part of the National Academies, which also includes the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine) to study how successfully the federal government measures rape. The answer has just arrived, in a report out Tuesday with the headline from the press release: “The National Crime Victimization Survey Is Likely Undercounting Rape and Sexual Assault.” We’re not talking about small fractions—we’re talking about the kind of potentially massive underestimate that the military and the Justice Department have warned about for years—and that could be throwing a wrench into the effort to do the most effective type of rape prevention.....

But here are the flaws that call the nice-sounding stats into doubt: The NCVS is designed to measure all kinds of crime victimization. The questions it poses about sexual violence are embedded among questions that ask about lots of other types of crime. For example:

So......the NCVS can't get an accurate account of what it is researching....how do we know this...the numbers are off...

There is, in fact, an existing survey that has many of the attributes the NCVS currently lacks. It’s administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and it’s called the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. (NISVS is the acronym. Apologies for the alphabet soup.)

NISVS “represents the public health perspective,” as Tuesday’s report puts it, and it asks questions about specific behavior, including whether the survey-taker was unable to consent to sex because he or she had been drinking or taking drugs. NISVS was first conducted in 2010, so it doesn’t go back in time the way the NCVS numbers do.

But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).

NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault. And the FBI, which collects its data from local law enforcement, and so only counts rapes and attempted rapes that have been reported as crimes, totaled only 85,593 for 2010.

So no....the NCVS is not a tool to understand the use of guns for self defense..........

And the most obvious point.......they undercount rape and sexual assault by a vast number compared to an actual study that researches rape and sexual assault....using the same method the anti gunners claim for the number of gun defenses....

But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).

NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault.



So the study the anti gunner hemenway cites as gospel on the defensive use of guns.....

-which doesn't ask about defensive gun use

-which doesn't even use the word gun in the study

-which under counts rapes and other crimes as reported by left wing Slate.....

This is the study that he and you hang your hat on as to how often Americans use guns for self defense....

Do you actually realize how stupid you are to do that?

It is like asking people about driving cars.....and if they mention they go to the store, you find out that they bought juice....

Juice is never asked about in the study...."juice" as a word is nowhere in the study.....and the study is about driving cars....

And a moron like you would cite it as the definitive work on Juice drinking by the American public....

That is how dumb you are.

 

[2aguy]

I know gun nutters. You are going to trot out bill Clinton right?
You all hate him. But it's a love hate thing. Right? LMAO.

No twit....I am going to trot out actual research....actual studies conducted on the use of guns for self defense...by both private and public researchers, many of whom are anti gun in their beliefs........

I will highlight the ones that are over a million.

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

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

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

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

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

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


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

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

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

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

 

[PK1]

Alcohol in the wrong hands has much higher numbers. See post 12.

The big Q is ...
How do we keep guns away from dangerous & self-centered people?
.

---
I am a Libertarian, with a social responsibility flavor.
Mature/normal adults should have maximum personal freedom, including drinking alcohol, safe prostitution, taking drugs "responsibly", smoking marijuana w/out 2nd-hand smoke impacting innocent others, and even doing stupid victimless stuff like smoking tobacco.
Enjoying gun ownership responsibly is part of Libertarian freedom.

HOWEVER, any activity that negatively impacts the welfare of others needs to be addressed & mitigated.
Since firearms are dangerous to society when in the "wrong hands", their availability (to dangerous people) needs to be addressed in some effective manner.
No?
.

---
Agreed.
The big Q (w/ variations) remains:
How do we prevent/minimize immature & dangerous personalities from harming others with major lethal objects, such as guns, automobiles, etc?
Alcohol can be a problem ... for some people. Shall we regulate alcohol purchases only to responsible people, including a 16-yr-old?
BTW, 16 yo teens can legally purchase beer in Germany. Not a social problem!
.

 

[PK1]

The big Q is ...
How do we keep guns away from dangerous & self-centered people?
.

---
.... any activity that negatively impacts the welfare of others needs to be addressed & mitigated.
Since firearms are dangerous to society when in the "wrong hands", their availability (to dangerous people) needs to be addressed in some effective manner.
.

and we have addressed guns in the wrong hands....

---
No we have not addressed guns in the wrong/illegal hands.

Ignoring the problem does not help.
.

 

[2aguy]

The big Q is ...
How do we keep guns away from dangerous & self-centered people?
.

---
.... any activity that negatively impacts the welfare of others needs to be addressed & mitigated.
Since firearms are dangerous to society when in the "wrong hands", their availability (to dangerous people) needs to be addressed in some effective manner.
.

and we have addressed guns in the wrong hands....

---
No we have not addressed guns in the wrong/illegal hands.

Ignoring the problem does not help.
.

When someone uses a gun to commit a crime they can be arrested and locked up....that is how you address gun crime...anything else is simply directed at the very people not committing crimes with guns.

 

[depotoo]

How do you address criminals that ignore the law? That is why they are criminals, laws mean jack to them.

The big Q is ...
How do we keep guns away from dangerous & self-centered people?
.

---
.... any activity that negatively impacts the welfare of others needs to be addressed & mitigated.
Since firearms are dangerous to society when in the "wrong hands", their availability (to dangerous people) needs to be addressed in some effective manner.
.

and we have addressed guns in the wrong hands....

---
No we have not addressed guns in the wrong/illegal hands.

Ignoring the problem does not help.
.

 

[PK1]

The big Q is ...
How do we keep guns away from dangerous & self-centered people?
.

---
.... any activity that negatively impacts the welfare of others needs to be addressed & mitigated.
Since firearms are dangerous to society when in the "wrong hands", their availability (to dangerous people) needs to be addressed in some effective manner.
.

and we have addressed guns in the wrong hands....

---
No we have not addressed guns in the wrong/illegal hands.

Ignoring the problem does not help.
.

When someone uses a gun to commit a crime they can be arrested and locked up....that is how you address gun crime...anything else is simply directed at the very people not committing crimes with guns.

---
I agree 100% that those who break laws (that victimize other people) need to be arrested/neutralized.
HOWEVER, i am talking about the GREY area between legal possession & use of guns and ...
the criminal possession/usage.

Consider arrests for killing someone after drunk driving. Was it enough to simply ignore drunk drivers ... until they injure or kill someone?
Since 1980, when MADD lobbied for the GREY area in mitigating that problem, drunk driving deaths have decreased by one HALF.

If you are not part of the GREY "solution" discussion to reduce gun violence/deaths, then you are part of the problem.
.

 

[2aguy]

The big Q is ...
How do we keep guns away from dangerous & self-centered people?
.

---
.... any activity that negatively impacts the welfare of others needs to be addressed & mitigated.
Since firearms are dangerous to society when in the "wrong hands", their availability (to dangerous people) needs to be addressed in some effective manner.
.

and we have addressed guns in the wrong hands....

---
No we have not addressed guns in the wrong/illegal hands.

Ignoring the problem does not help.
.

When someone uses a gun to commit a crime they can be arrested and locked up....that is how you address gun crime...anything else is simply directed at the very people not committing crimes with guns.

---
I agree 100% that those who break laws (that victimize other people) need to be arrested/neutralized.
HOWEVER, i am talking about the GREY area between legal possession & use of guns and ...
the criminal possession/usage.

Consider arrests for killing someone after drunk driving. Was it enough to simply ignore drunk drivers ... until they injure or kill someone?
Since 1980, when MADD lobbied for the GREY area in mitigating that problem, drunk driving deaths have decreased by one HALF.

If you are not part of the GREY "solution" discussion to reduce gun violence/deaths, then you are part of the problem.
.

okay...you tell me your ideas.....

and did they mandate blow tubes for all cars for all drivers before anyone can drive a car?

do they mandate background checks for DUIs before you can get in a car?

No...Drunk driving is handled exactly the way we should handle gun crime....if you are caught driving drunk you are punished........I advocate the same thing for guns.......

 

[PK1]

---
.... any activity that negatively impacts the welfare of others needs to be addressed & mitigated.
Since firearms are dangerous to society when in the "wrong hands", their availability (to dangerous people) needs to be addressed in some effective manner.
.

and we have addressed guns in the wrong hands....

---
No we have not addressed guns in the wrong/illegal hands.

Ignoring the problem does not help.
.

When someone uses a gun to commit a crime they can be arrested and locked up....that is how you address gun crime...anything else is simply directed at the very people not committing crimes with guns.

---
I agree 100% that those who break laws (that victimize other people) need to be arrested/neutralized.
HOWEVER, i am talking about the GREY area between legal possession & use of guns and ...
the criminal possession/usage.

Consider arrests for killing someone after drunk driving. Was it enough to simply ignore drunk drivers ... until they injure or kill someone?
Since 1980, when MADD lobbied for the GREY area in mitigating that problem, drunk driving deaths have decreased by one HALF.

If you are not part of the GREY "solution" discussion to reduce gun violence/deaths, then you are part of the problem.
.

okay...you tell me your ideas.....

and did they mandate blow tubes for all cars for all drivers before anyone can drive a car?

do they mandate background checks for DUIs before you can get in a car?

No...Drunk driving is handled exactly the way we should handle gun crime....if you are caught driving drunk you are punished........I advocate the same thing for guns.......

---
OK, let's continue the safety comparisons between owning/driving a car and owning/using a firearm.
Perhaps this can be fruitful, albeit a bit strained. For example, it's much easier to smuggle into USA a gun than a car.

BTW, i think the biggest problem is identifying how guns get into the hands of criminals, esp the guns not officially manufactured & registered here in USA, and not officially purchased.

In order to buy/register a car, one has to have a driver's license, after demonstrating competence in driving/parking. Then, normally, to drive the car, one needs a KEY. The car needs smog/safety inspections (unless new), and LIABILITY insurance as well as have its registration renewed annually.
Not cheap!
If people don't really need a car, they just don't get one & use public transport instead.
If the driver is irresponsible, their license is taken away.

Perhaps some of these inconvenient gov regulations can apply to gun ownership & usage, for the public good.
I will follow-up later; gotta go soon.
.

 

[2aguy]

and we have addressed guns in the wrong hands....

---
No we have not addressed guns in the wrong/illegal hands.

Ignoring the problem does not help.
.

When someone uses a gun to commit a crime they can be arrested and locked up....that is how you address gun crime...anything else is simply directed at the very people not committing crimes with guns.

---
I agree 100% that those who break laws (that victimize other people) need to be arrested/neutralized.
HOWEVER, i am talking about the GREY area between legal possession & use of guns and ...
the criminal possession/usage.

Consider arrests for killing someone after drunk driving. Was it enough to simply ignore drunk drivers ... until they injure or kill someone?
Since 1980, when MADD lobbied for the GREY area in mitigating that problem, drunk driving deaths have decreased by one HALF.

If you are not part of the GREY "solution" discussion to reduce gun violence/deaths, then you are part of the problem.
.

okay...you tell me your ideas.....

and did they mandate blow tubes for all cars for all drivers before anyone can drive a car?

do they mandate background checks for DUIs before you can get in a car?

No...Drunk driving is handled exactly the way we should handle gun crime....if you are caught driving drunk you are punished........I advocate the same thing for guns.......

---
OK, let's continue the safety comparisons between owning/driving a car and owning/using a firearm.
Perhaps this can be fruitful, albeit a bit strained. For example, it's much easier to smuggle into USA a gun than a car.

BTW, i think the biggest problem is identifying how guns get into the hands of criminals, esp the guns not officially manufactured & registered here in USA, and not officially purchased.

In order to buy/register a car, one has to have a driver's license, after demonstrating competence in driving/parking. Then, normally, to drive the car, one needs a KEY. The car needs smog/safety inspections (unless new), and LIABILITY insurance as well as have its registration renewed annually.
Not cheap!
If people don't really need a car, they just don't get one & use public transport instead.
If the driver is irresponsible, their license is taken away.

Perhaps some of these inconvenient gov regulations can apply to gun ownership & usage, for the public good.
I will follow-up later; gotta go soon.
.

Criminals use people with clean records to buy their guns...or they steal them.....thereby nullifying any background checks, or licensing schemes for gun owners.....and felons do not have to register their illegal guns as per the Haynes v. United States decision...thereby nullifying registration of guns.

And cars are not a right, access to guns is.

The democrats tried to use Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep blacks from exercising the right to vote....

Any of those things you point to with cars would essentially be Poll Taxes and Literacy tests for the exercise of the 2nd Amendment Right from our Bill of Rights and would be unconstitutional.......

The most effective way to deal with gun crime....arrest people who commit gun crime and actually lock them up...our prosecutors and judges have a problem with the locking them up part of the equation.