The Moment Sandy Hook Parents start cashing in their kids..

[Iceweasel]

That is funny. Do you ever read stories of defenses? There are quite a few that end with a dead criminal actually. A study had these findings:
Overall, shots were fired by the defender in 72% of incidents. The average and median number of shots fired was 2. When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender's initial response was to fire until empty. It appears that revolver shooters are more likely to empty their guns than autoloader shooters. At least one assailant was killed in 34% of all incidents. At least one assailant was wounded in an additional 29% of all incidents. Of the incidents where shots are fired by a defender, at least one assailant is killed in 53% of those incidents.

This study was done based on the defense incidents on the NRA website. So again, you'd have to be an idiot to believe there are anywhere near 2 million defenses each year when only about 230 criminals are shot and killed.

At least one person was killed a third of the time? I call bull. Post it up. And if you were one of those 230 that saved your life, or family, you wouldn't be so flippant about statistics.

 

[Brain357]

That is funny. Do you ever read stories of defenses? There are quite a few that end with a dead criminal actually. A study had these findings:
Overall, shots were fired by the defender in 72% of incidents. The average and median number of shots fired was 2. When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender's initial response was to fire until empty. It appears that revolver shooters are more likely to empty their guns than autoloader shooters. At least one assailant was killed in 34% of all incidents. At least one assailant was wounded in an additional 29% of all incidents. Of the incidents where shots are fired by a defender, at least one assailant is killed in 53% of those incidents.

This study was done based on the defense incidents on the NRA website. So again, you'd have to be an idiot to believe there are anywhere near 2 million defenses each year when only about 230 criminals are shot and killed.

At least one person was killed a third of the time? I call bull. Post it up. And if you were one of those 230 that saved your life, or family, you wouldn't be so flippant about statistics.

Here is the study
The Thinking Gunfighter Self Defense Findings

Only way it is wrong is if nra members are full of shit.

 

[Brain357]

I can give you a long list of murderers who used hi cap magazines.

25 examples isn't a long list. But I do realize it's more toes and fingers than you have.

What you are missing is that the 2nd A is also about keeping government in check, to prevent tyranny from overtaking the people like elsewhere. So yes, if the liberals get enough armed servants to their cause they can and will be repelled by the masses. The founders wrote about it as it was a concern to them from day one.

I suspect that's the real motivation behind reducing ammo capacity.

Sorry but owning guns isn't keeping government in check. We have a ton of guns and our government is a mess.

In this age of cell phones, internet, 24 hour news channels.... A tyrant is never going to be able to make our military do the wrong thing. To say they would is an insult to everyone serving. And since they won't turn against the people, citizens don't need to be armed.

 

[Roadrunner]

I can give you a long list of murderers who used hi cap magazines.

25 examples isn't a long list. But I do realize it's more toes and fingers than you have.

What you are missing is that the 2nd A is also about keeping government in check, to prevent tyranny from overtaking the people like elsewhere. So yes, if the liberals get enough armed servants to their cause they can and will be repelled by the masses. The founders wrote about it as it was a concern to them from day one.

I suspect that's the real motivation behind reducing ammo capacity.

Sorry but owning guns isn't keeping government in check. We have a ton of guns and our government is a mess.

In this age of cell phones, internet, 24 hour news channels.... A tyrant is never going to be able to make our military do the wrong thing. To say they would is an insult to everyone serving. And since they won't turn against the people, citizens don't need to be armed.

Few people have guns thinking they keep the government in check.

People have guns for sporting use, but, most people have guns because the government will not keep people in check.

 

[ChrisL]

ALL of the data is referenced in the link. A lot of is from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Now what?

Gun Facts Gun Control Guns and Crime Prevention

So what stat in there do you think is worldwide? You didn't answer my question.

Actually, I just did a little research and, shockingly, that IS in the US alone. How about that? Wow! That's a lot of law-abiding citizens using guns to defend themselves against attackers! Right?

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

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

There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?

Yes it is all in the US. So you actually believe there are like 2 million defenses but only 230 criminals shot each year? You will believe anything.

Leftardicus Maximus,
Most self defense encounters don't involve shooting. The presence of a gun is enough to stop a criminal. I've seen it myself more than once.

That is funny. Do you ever read stories of defenses? There are quite a few that end with a dead criminal actually. A study had these findings:
Overall, shots were fired by the defender in 72% of incidents. The average and median number of shots fired was 2. When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender's initial response was to fire until empty. It appears that revolver shooters are more likely to empty their guns than autoloader shooters. At least one assailant was killed in 34% of all incidents. At least one assailant was wounded in an additional 29% of all incidents. Of the incidents where shots are fired by a defender, at least one assailant is killed in 53% of those incidents.

This study was done based on the defense incidents on the NRA website. So again, you'd have to be an idiot to believe there are anywhere near 2 million defenses each year when only about 230 criminals are shot and killed.

Wrong, the data was gleaned from the National Crime Victimization Survey, and the data I linked to explains how those numbers are even often times UNDER estimated. THAT is why Dr. Kleck's numbers are higher than the NCVS numbers. NCVS statistics are limited due to a variety of reasons. Obviously, you didn't even BOTHER to read the link.

Also, 2.5 million is NOT hard to believe in a country of over 300,000,000 people!!!

Snip from link below:

Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."

"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. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents 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."

"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, 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, 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."

Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "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."

 

[Iceweasel]

Here is the study
The Thinking Gunfighter Self Defense Findings

Only way it is wrong is if nra members are full of shit.

Or you are. I did a search for "230" with no hits. And it's a op-ed piece about incidents reported to the NRA, supposedly.

 

[Iceweasel]

Sorry but owning guns isn't keeping government in check. We have a ton of guns and our government is a mess.

In this age of cell phones, internet, 24 hour news channels.... A tyrant is never going to be able to make our military do the wrong thing. To say they would is an insult to everyone serving. And since they won't turn against the people, citizens don't need to be armed.

I didn't say anything about the military, clean the shit out of your eyes. And I didn't say anything about people micro-managing government.

Your problem is that you are literally too stupid to understand the issue.

 

[Brain357]

So what stat in there do you think is worldwide? You didn't answer my question.

Actually, I just did a little research and, shockingly, that IS in the US alone. How about that? Wow! That's a lot of law-abiding citizens using guns to defend themselves against attackers! Right?

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

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

There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?

Yes it is all in the US. So you actually believe there are like 2 million defenses but only 230 criminals shot each year? You will believe anything.

Leftardicus Maximus,
Most self defense encounters don't involve shooting. The presence of a gun is enough to stop a criminal. I've seen it myself more than once.

That is funny. Do you ever read stories of defenses? There are quite a few that end with a dead criminal actually. A study had these findings:
Overall, shots were fired by the defender in 72% of incidents. The average and median number of shots fired was 2. When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender's initial response was to fire until empty. It appears that revolver shooters are more likely to empty their guns than autoloader shooters. At least one assailant was killed in 34% of all incidents. At least one assailant was wounded in an additional 29% of all incidents. Of the incidents where shots are fired by a defender, at least one assailant is killed in 53% of those incidents.

This study was done based on the defense incidents on the NRA website. So again, you'd have to be an idiot to believe there are anywhere near 2 million defenses each year when only about 230 criminals are shot and killed.

Wrong, the data was gleaned from the National Crime Victimization Survey, and the data I linked to explains how those numbers are even often times UNDER estimated. THAT is why Dr. Kleck's numbers are higher than the NCVS numbers. NCVS statistics are limited due to a variety of reasons. Obviously, you didn't even BOTHER to read the link.

Also, 2.5 million is NOT hard to believe in a country of over 300,000,000 people!!!

Snip from link below:

Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."

"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. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents 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."

"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, 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, 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."

Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "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."

No the study was done based on actual incidents. You keep posting deeply flawed surveys that can't agree on a number.

Again only 230 criminals shot and killed each year in defense. You would have to be a moron to believe there are over 2 million defenses and so few killed.

 

[Brain357]

Sorry but owning guns isn't keeping government in check. We have a ton of guns and our government is a mess.

In this age of cell phones, internet, 24 hour news channels.... A tyrant is never going to be able to make our military do the wrong thing. To say they would is an insult to everyone serving. And since they won't turn against the people, citizens don't need to be armed.

I didn't say anything about the military, clean the shit out of your eyes. And I didn't say anything about people micro-managing government.

Your problem is that you are literally too stupid to understand the issue.

And you are bringing nothing to this debate, just a lot of crying. You've matched nothing I've posted, you lose.

 

[Brain357]

Here is the study
The Thinking Gunfighter Self Defense Findings

Only way it is wrong is if nra members are full of shit.

Or you are. I did a search for "230" with no hits. And it's a op-ed piece about incidents reported to the NRA, supposedly.

Look for justifiable homicide numbers. Are you really so dumb?

 

[Iceweasel]

Here is the study
The Thinking Gunfighter Self Defense Findings

Only way it is wrong is if nra members are full of shit.

Or you are. I did a search for "230" with no hits. And it's a op-ed piece about incidents reported to the NRA, supposedly.

Look for justifiable homicide numbers. Are you really so dumb?

It wasn't on the page. Try again.

 

[ChrisL]

Actually, I just did a little research and, shockingly, that IS in the US alone. How about that? Wow! That's a lot of law-abiding citizens using guns to defend themselves against attackers! Right?

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

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

There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?

Yes it is all in the US. So you actually believe there are like 2 million defenses but only 230 criminals shot each year? You will believe anything.

Leftardicus Maximus,
Most self defense encounters don't involve shooting. The presence of a gun is enough to stop a criminal. I've seen it myself more than once.

That is funny. Do you ever read stories of defenses? There are quite a few that end with a dead criminal actually. A study had these findings:
Overall, shots were fired by the defender in 72% of incidents. The average and median number of shots fired was 2. When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender's initial response was to fire until empty. It appears that revolver shooters are more likely to empty their guns than autoloader shooters. At least one assailant was killed in 34% of all incidents. At least one assailant was wounded in an additional 29% of all incidents. Of the incidents where shots are fired by a defender, at least one assailant is killed in 53% of those incidents.

This study was done based on the defense incidents on the NRA website. So again, you'd have to be an idiot to believe there are anywhere near 2 million defenses each year when only about 230 criminals are shot and killed.

Wrong, the data was gleaned from the National Crime Victimization Survey, and the data I linked to explains how those numbers are even often times UNDER estimated. THAT is why Dr. Kleck's numbers are higher than the NCVS numbers. NCVS statistics are limited due to a variety of reasons. Obviously, you didn't even BOTHER to read the link.

Also, 2.5 million is NOT hard to believe in a country of over 300,000,000 people!!!

Snip from link below:

Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."

"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. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents 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."

"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, 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, 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."

Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "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."

No the study was done based on actual incidents. You keep posting deeply flawed surveys that can't agree on a number.

Again only 230 criminals shot and killed each year in defense. You would have to be a moron to believe there are over 2 million defenses and so few killed.

No brain dead, you are wrong. Just because a criminal is not shot, that does not mean he wasn't scared off by a potential victim's firearm. That counts too.

BTW, you have YET to provide any kind of link to support your claims or to refute mine. Sorry, but your inability to believe a perfectly valid study is not good enough. The bold section below means that a person who was NOT victimized (because the perp ran off or whatever) is NOT counted as using their gun in a defensive manner. Even on the low estimates, an estimated 1 million people use their guns to defend themselves against criminals every year. WHY do you want to leave 1 million or more people helpless? Some of those people could be dead if not for their right to defend themselves with guns.

Defensive gun use - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

An article published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, drawing its DGU from the NCVS, said: "In 1992 offenders armed with handguns committed a record 931,000 violent crimes ... On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor vehicle theft."[15] Cook and Ludwig said of the NCVS, NSPOF, and Kleck surveys: "The key explanation for the difference between the 108,000 NCVS estimate for the annual number of defensive gun uses and the several million from the surveys discussed earlier is that NCVS avoids the false-positive problem by limiting defensive gun use questions to persons who first reported that they were crime victims. Most NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the defensive gun use question, falsely or otherwise."[8]

 

[ChrisL]

Actually, I just did a little research and, shockingly, that IS in the US alone. How about that? Wow! That's a lot of law-abiding citizens using guns to defend themselves against attackers! Right?

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

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

There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?

Yes it is all in the US. So you actually believe there are like 2 million defenses but only 230 criminals shot each year? You will believe anything.

Leftardicus Maximus,
Most self defense encounters don't involve shooting. The presence of a gun is enough to stop a criminal. I've seen it myself more than once.

That is funny. Do you ever read stories of defenses? There are quite a few that end with a dead criminal actually. A study had these findings:
Overall, shots were fired by the defender in 72% of incidents. The average and median number of shots fired was 2. When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender's initial response was to fire until empty. It appears that revolver shooters are more likely to empty their guns than autoloader shooters. At least one assailant was killed in 34% of all incidents. At least one assailant was wounded in an additional 29% of all incidents. Of the incidents where shots are fired by a defender, at least one assailant is killed in 53% of those incidents.

This study was done based on the defense incidents on the NRA website. So again, you'd have to be an idiot to believe there are anywhere near 2 million defenses each year when only about 230 criminals are shot and killed.

Wrong, the data was gleaned from the National Crime Victimization Survey, and the data I linked to explains how those numbers are even often times UNDER estimated. THAT is why Dr. Kleck's numbers are higher than the NCVS numbers. NCVS statistics are limited due to a variety of reasons. Obviously, you didn't even BOTHER to read the link.

Also, 2.5 million is NOT hard to believe in a country of over 300,000,000 people!!!

Snip from link below:

Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."

"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. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents 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."

"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, 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, 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."

Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "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."

No the study was done based on actual incidents. You keep posting deeply flawed surveys that can't agree on a number.

Again only 230 criminals shot and killed each year in defense. You would have to be a moron to believe there are over 2 million defenses and so few killed.

It doesn't matter how many were SHOT, brain dead. If you pull your gun, and the perp flees because he is frightened, that counts as defense as well.

 

[Iceweasel]

And you are bringing nothing to this debate, just a lot of crying. You've matched nothing I've posted, you lose.

Just like a pigeon, clucking around victoriously. I brought history and the Constitution into it, neither of any use to you.

Here's Brain bending a fork with his mind.

 

[ChrisL]

Actually, I just did a little research and, shockingly, that IS in the US alone. How about that? Wow! That's a lot of law-abiding citizens using guns to defend themselves against attackers! Right?

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

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

There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?

Yes it is all in the US. So you actually believe there are like 2 million defenses but only 230 criminals shot each year? You will believe anything.

Leftardicus Maximus,
Most self defense encounters don't involve shooting. The presence of a gun is enough to stop a criminal. I've seen it myself more than once.

That is funny. Do you ever read stories of defenses? There are quite a few that end with a dead criminal actually. A study had these findings:
Overall, shots were fired by the defender in 72% of incidents. The average and median number of shots fired was 2. When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender's initial response was to fire until empty. It appears that revolver shooters are more likely to empty their guns than autoloader shooters. At least one assailant was killed in 34% of all incidents. At least one assailant was wounded in an additional 29% of all incidents. Of the incidents where shots are fired by a defender, at least one assailant is killed in 53% of those incidents.

This study was done based on the defense incidents on the NRA website. So again, you'd have to be an idiot to believe there are anywhere near 2 million defenses each year when only about 230 criminals are shot and killed.

Wrong, the data was gleaned from the National Crime Victimization Survey, and the data I linked to explains how those numbers are even often times UNDER estimated. THAT is why Dr. Kleck's numbers are higher than the NCVS numbers. NCVS statistics are limited due to a variety of reasons. Obviously, you didn't even BOTHER to read the link.

Also, 2.5 million is NOT hard to believe in a country of over 300,000,000 people!!!

Snip from link below:

Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."

"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. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents 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."

"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, 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, 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."

Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "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."

No the study was done based on actual incidents. You keep posting deeply flawed surveys that can't agree on a number.

Again only 230 criminals shot and killed each year in defense. You would have to be a moron to believe there are over 2 million defenses and so few killed.

There is nothing wrong with the data. The problem here is that you don't understand it.

 

[Brain357]

Here is the study
The Thinking Gunfighter Self Defense Findings

Only way it is wrong is if nra members are full of shit.

Or you are. I did a search for "230" with no hits. And it's a op-ed piece about incidents reported to the NRA, supposedly.

Look for justifiable homicide numbers. Are you really so dumb?

It wasn't on the page. Try again.

I guess you don't know how to search the internet.
Enjoy this one
Less Guns Less Crime- Debunking the Self-Defense Myth Armed With Reason

 

[Brain357]

Yes it is all in the US. So you actually believe there are like 2 million defenses but only 230 criminals shot each year? You will believe anything.

Leftardicus Maximus,
Most self defense encounters don't involve shooting. The presence of a gun is enough to stop a criminal. I've seen it myself more than once.

That is funny. Do you ever read stories of defenses? There are quite a few that end with a dead criminal actually. A study had these findings:
Overall, shots were fired by the defender in 72% of incidents. The average and median number of shots fired was 2. When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender's initial response was to fire until empty. It appears that revolver shooters are more likely to empty their guns than autoloader shooters. At least one assailant was killed in 34% of all incidents. At least one assailant was wounded in an additional 29% of all incidents. Of the incidents where shots are fired by a defender, at least one assailant is killed in 53% of those incidents.

This study was done based on the defense incidents on the NRA website. So again, you'd have to be an idiot to believe there are anywhere near 2 million defenses each year when only about 230 criminals are shot and killed.

Wrong, the data was gleaned from the National Crime Victimization Survey, and the data I linked to explains how those numbers are even often times UNDER estimated. THAT is why Dr. Kleck's numbers are higher than the NCVS numbers. NCVS statistics are limited due to a variety of reasons. Obviously, you didn't even BOTHER to read the link.

Also, 2.5 million is NOT hard to believe in a country of over 300,000,000 people!!!

Snip from link below:

Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."

"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. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents 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."

"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, 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, 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."

Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "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."

No the study was done based on actual incidents. You keep posting deeply flawed surveys that can't agree on a number.

Again only 230 criminals shot and killed each year in defense. You would have to be a moron to believe there are over 2 million defenses and so few killed.

There is nothing wrong with the data. The problem here is that you don't understand it.

Every survey has a different result. From 100k to like 3mil. They are not accurate.

 

[Brain357]

Yes it is all in the US. So you actually believe there are like 2 million defenses but only 230 criminals shot each year? You will believe anything.

Leftardicus Maximus,
Most self defense encounters don't involve shooting. The presence of a gun is enough to stop a criminal. I've seen it myself more than once.

That is funny. Do you ever read stories of defenses? There are quite a few that end with a dead criminal actually. A study had these findings:
Overall, shots were fired by the defender in 72% of incidents. The average and median number of shots fired was 2. When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender's initial response was to fire until empty. It appears that revolver shooters are more likely to empty their guns than autoloader shooters. At least one assailant was killed in 34% of all incidents. At least one assailant was wounded in an additional 29% of all incidents. Of the incidents where shots are fired by a defender, at least one assailant is killed in 53% of those incidents.

This study was done based on the defense incidents on the NRA website. So again, you'd have to be an idiot to believe there are anywhere near 2 million defenses each year when only about 230 criminals are shot and killed.

Wrong, the data was gleaned from the National Crime Victimization Survey, and the data I linked to explains how those numbers are even often times UNDER estimated. THAT is why Dr. Kleck's numbers are higher than the NCVS numbers. NCVS statistics are limited due to a variety of reasons. Obviously, you didn't even BOTHER to read the link.

Also, 2.5 million is NOT hard to believe in a country of over 300,000,000 people!!!

Snip from link below:

Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."

"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. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents 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."

"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, 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, 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."

Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "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."

No the study was done based on actual incidents. You keep posting deeply flawed surveys that can't agree on a number.

Again only 230 criminals shot and killed each year in defense. You would have to be a moron to believe there are over 2 million defenses and so few killed.

It doesn't matter how many were SHOT, brain dead. If you pull your gun, and the perp flees because he is frightened, that counts as defense as well.

I've provided a study showing how often a criminal is shot and killed during a defense. Your fake defense numbers don't ad up. They are fantasy.

 

[ChrisL]

Leftardicus Maximus,
Most self defense encounters don't involve shooting. The presence of a gun is enough to stop a criminal. I've seen it myself more than once.

That is funny. Do you ever read stories of defenses? There are quite a few that end with a dead criminal actually. A study had these findings:
Overall, shots were fired by the defender in 72% of incidents. The average and median number of shots fired was 2. When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender's initial response was to fire until empty. It appears that revolver shooters are more likely to empty their guns than autoloader shooters. At least one assailant was killed in 34% of all incidents. At least one assailant was wounded in an additional 29% of all incidents. Of the incidents where shots are fired by a defender, at least one assailant is killed in 53% of those incidents.

This study was done based on the defense incidents on the NRA website. So again, you'd have to be an idiot to believe there are anywhere near 2 million defenses each year when only about 230 criminals are shot and killed.

Wrong, the data was gleaned from the National Crime Victimization Survey, and the data I linked to explains how those numbers are even often times UNDER estimated. THAT is why Dr. Kleck's numbers are higher than the NCVS numbers. NCVS statistics are limited due to a variety of reasons. Obviously, you didn't even BOTHER to read the link.

Also, 2.5 million is NOT hard to believe in a country of over 300,000,000 people!!!

Snip from link below:

Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."

"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. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents 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."

"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, 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, 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."

Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "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."

No the study was done based on actual incidents. You keep posting deeply flawed surveys that can't agree on a number.

Again only 230 criminals shot and killed each year in defense. You would have to be a moron to believe there are over 2 million defenses and so few killed.

There is nothing wrong with the data. The problem here is that you don't understand it.

Every survey has a different result. From 100k to like 3mil. They are not accurate.

That's right. That is because the ones on the lower end of the spectrum do NOT account for people who were not actually victims of a crime, because they scared the perp off with their guns before he victimized them.

That is pretty simple to understand. The number that falls in the middle is estimated (by the DOJ) to be approximately 800,000 to 1,000,000 incidents where people have defended themselves against a criminal, while being counted as a crime victim.

So, we can assume that the proper number is between 800,000 and 2 million people defend themselves yearly with a firearm against crime. Why do you want to take that right away from us?

 

[ChrisL]

Leftardicus Maximus,
Most self defense encounters don't involve shooting. The presence of a gun is enough to stop a criminal. I've seen it myself more than once.

That is funny. Do you ever read stories of defenses? There are quite a few that end with a dead criminal actually. A study had these findings:
Overall, shots were fired by the defender in 72% of incidents. The average and median number of shots fired was 2. When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender's initial response was to fire until empty. It appears that revolver shooters are more likely to empty their guns than autoloader shooters. At least one assailant was killed in 34% of all incidents. At least one assailant was wounded in an additional 29% of all incidents. Of the incidents where shots are fired by a defender, at least one assailant is killed in 53% of those incidents.

This study was done based on the defense incidents on the NRA website. So again, you'd have to be an idiot to believe there are anywhere near 2 million defenses each year when only about 230 criminals are shot and killed.

Wrong, the data was gleaned from the National Crime Victimization Survey, and the data I linked to explains how those numbers are even often times UNDER estimated. THAT is why Dr. Kleck's numbers are higher than the NCVS numbers. NCVS statistics are limited due to a variety of reasons. Obviously, you didn't even BOTHER to read the link.

Also, 2.5 million is NOT hard to believe in a country of over 300,000,000 people!!!

Snip from link below:

Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."

"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. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents 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."

"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, 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, 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."

Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "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."

No the study was done based on actual incidents. You keep posting deeply flawed surveys that can't agree on a number.

Again only 230 criminals shot and killed each year in defense. You would have to be a moron to believe there are over 2 million defenses and so few killed.

It doesn't matter how many were SHOT, brain dead. If you pull your gun, and the perp flees because he is frightened, that counts as defense as well.

I've provided a study showing how often a criminal is shot and killed during a defense. Your fake defense numbers don't ad up. They

Leftardicus Maximus,
Most self defense encounters don't involve shooting. The presence of a gun is enough to stop a criminal. I've seen it myself more than once.

That is funny. Do you ever read stories of defenses? There are quite a few that end with a dead criminal actually. A study had these findings:
Overall, shots were fired by the defender in 72% of incidents. The average and median number of shots fired was 2. When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender's initial response was to fire until empty. It appears that revolver shooters are more likely to empty their guns than autoloader shooters. At least one assailant was killed in 34% of all incidents. At least one assailant was wounded in an additional 29% of all incidents. Of the incidents where shots are fired by a defender, at least one assailant is killed in 53% of those incidents.

This study was done based on the defense incidents on the NRA website. So again, you'd have to be an idiot to believe there are anywhere near 2 million defenses each year when only about 230 criminals are shot and killed.

Wrong, the data was gleaned from the National Crime Victimization Survey, and the data I linked to explains how those numbers are even often times UNDER estimated. THAT is why Dr. Kleck's numbers are higher than the NCVS numbers. NCVS statistics are limited due to a variety of reasons. Obviously, you didn't even BOTHER to read the link.

Also, 2.5 million is NOT hard to believe in a country of over 300,000,000 people!!!

Snip from link below:

Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."

"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. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents 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."

"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, 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, 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."

Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "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."

No the study was done based on actual incidents. You keep posting deeply flawed surveys that can't agree on a number.

Again only 230 criminals shot and killed each year in defense. You would have to be a moron to believe there are over 2 million defenses and so few killed.

It doesn't matter how many were SHOT, brain dead. If you pull your gun, and the perp flees because he is frightened, that counts as defense as well.

I've provided a study showing how often a criminal is shot and killed during a defense. Your fake defense numbers don't ad up. They are fantasy.

OMG, you really are brain dead. Those numbers ONLY account for perps who were shot. There are plenty of times when a person scares off a criminal without shooting their weapon. Those incidents count as self defense too. Is this starting to sink in yet?