USA's "gun problem"

[2aguy]

And for the love of God, quit trying to ban firearms so we have less firearms-related violence.

Fewer guns, fewer gun deaths. At no point will we stop trying to ban what most people long ago stopped needing.

Hmmm...tell that to Sweden.....a country with gun control and huge crime rates......or Puerto Rico with the Strictest gun control in the United States and one of the highest gun murder rates in the world.....

Your numbers will be crap of course, but post them anyway.

Them ~30, pop. 9.5 mil.
Us ~9,000, pop. 320 mil. Do the math.

Hmmm....but you guys always say that gun control will make these countries heaven.....ask the 6,620 women in Sweden raped and gang raped if gun control is working for them.....or the same for Puerto Rico....with stricter gun control than anywhere else in the U.S....an island nation.....with one of if not the highest gun murder rate in the world.....

How many rapes are preventable with a gun?

This looks at that question......

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape


However, most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.

I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance. This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.

First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.

Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

Third, a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.

Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes, "Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion." (Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished "without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."

The best conclusion from available scientific data, then, is when avoidance of rape has failed and one must choose between being raped and resisting, a woman's best option is to resist with a gun in her hands.

 

[Brain357]

Fewer guns, fewer gun deaths. At no point will we stop trying to ban what most people long ago stopped needing.

Hmmm...tell that to Sweden.....a country with gun control and huge crime rates......or Puerto Rico with the Strictest gun control in the United States and one of the highest gun murder rates in the world.....

Your numbers will be crap of course, but post them anyway.

Them ~30, pop. 9.5 mil.
Us ~9,000, pop. 320 mil. Do the math.

Hmmm....but you guys always say that gun control will make these countries heaven.....ask the 6,620 women in Sweden raped and gang raped if gun control is working for them.....or the same for Puerto Rico....with stricter gun control than anywhere else in the U.S....an island nation.....with one of if not the highest gun murder rate in the world.....

How many rapes are preventable with a gun?

This looks at that question......

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape


However, most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.

I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance. This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.

First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.

Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

Third, a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.

Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes, "Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion." (Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished "without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."

The best conclusion from available scientific data, then, is when avoidance of rape has failed and one must choose between being raped and resisting, a woman's best option is to resist with a gun in her hands.

Yes but how many can really be defended? For instance when lots of alcohol is involved or other drugs?

 

[2aguy]

And for the love of God, quit trying to ban firearms so we have less firearms-related violence.

Fewer guns, fewer gun deaths. At no point will we stop trying to ban what most people long ago stopped needing.

Hmmm...tell that to Sweden.....a country with gun control and huge crime rates......or Puerto Rico with the Strictest gun control in the United States and one of the highest gun murder rates in the world.....

Your numbers will be crap of course, but post them anyway.

Them ~30, pop. 9.5 mil.
Us ~9,000, pop. 320 mil. Do the math.

Hmmm....but you guys always say that gun control will make these countries heaven.....ask the 6,620 women in Sweden raped and gang raped if gun control is working for them.....or the same for Puerto Rico....with stricter gun control than anywhere else in the U.S....an island nation.....with one of if not the highest gun murder rate in the world.....

See, no numbers and you didn't do the math, as expected.

Asshole, I posted the numbers from the studies...you add em and average them yourself....I'll post it again....

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
DMIa 1978...2,141,512
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
Kleck...2.5 million
Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544
DMIb...1978...1,098,409
Hart...1981...1.797,461
Mauser...1990...1,487,342
Gallup...1993...1,621,377
DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043
Gallup...1991...777,152
Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..



NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000


Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....

 

[2aguy]

No, it's a gun problem. Every race have bast**s but not every race have guns to use! And as we can see, in many countries(European, but not third-world countries)where weapons are banned - crimes comitted with guns are very rare!

Alcohol kills and injures far more people in the US than guns do, why don't you anti-gun grabbers ban alcohol?

Because alcohol is alcohol, and guns - are guns, it's not equal things.
haven't got gun while drunken fight - you will not kill your "enemy"(of course can, but in many rare cases), if you have - you can kill him!
Alcohol is often - way to relax, guns too, but people suffered much more from guns, not from alcohol!

You haven't added the benefits of guns to your equation...each year, on average, guns are used by honest, law abiding ,innocent, non military, non police, people to stop violent crime and save lives 1.6 million times......

Vs.....8-9,000 gun murders

vs. ...6-700 accidental gun deaths...

so guns are a net benefit in the hands of good people......

Law abiding? Kleck has said most defenders are involved in criminal activity.

1) that's not what he said, 2) Kleck's is one of 9 studies.......

 

[BluesLegend]

No, it's a gun problem. Every race have bast**s but not every race have guns to use! And as we can see, in many countries(European, but not third-world countries)where weapons are banned - crimes comitted with guns are very rare!

Alcohol kills and injures far more people in the US than guns do, why don't you anti-gun grabbers ban alcohol?

Because alcohol is alcohol, and guns - are guns, it's not equal things.
haven't got gun while drunken fight - you will not kill your "enemy"(of course can, but in many rare cases), if you have - you can kill him!
Alcohol is often - way to relax, guns too, but people suffered much more from guns, not from alcohol!

So in other words liberal hypocrisy? Ignore the fact that alcohol kills and injures far more people than guns do and just keep spouting the anti-gun rhetoric?

Question, what is it with liberals wanting to ban things and control every part of our lives? I don't give a fuck what liberals do why can't they leave me alone?

 

[Brain357]

No, it's a gun problem. Every race have bast**s but not every race have guns to use! And as we can see, in many countries(European, but not third-world countries)where weapons are banned - crimes comitted with guns are very rare!

Alcohol kills and injures far more people in the US than guns do, why don't you anti-gun grabbers ban alcohol?

Because alcohol is alcohol, and guns - are guns, it's not equal things.
haven't got gun while drunken fight - you will not kill your "enemy"(of course can, but in many rare cases), if you have - you can kill him!
Alcohol is often - way to relax, guns too, but people suffered much more from guns, not from alcohol!

You haven't added the benefits of guns to your equation...each year, on average, guns are used by honest, law abiding ,innocent, non military, non police, people to stop violent crime and save lives 1.6 million times......

Vs.....8-9,000 gun murders

vs. ...6-700 accidental gun deaths...

so guns are a net benefit in the hands of good people......

Law abiding? Kleck has said most defenders are involved in criminal activity.

1) that's not what he said, 2) Kleck's is one of 9 studies.......

Bill we have discussed it many times and it's clear most aren't law abiding. Unless you have some new way to candy coat it.

 

[Brain357]

No, it's a gun problem. Every race have bast**s but not every race have guns to use! And as we can see, in many countries(European, but not third-world countries)where weapons are banned - crimes comitted with guns are very rare!

Alcohol kills and injures far more people in the US than guns do, why don't you anti-gun grabbers ban alcohol?

Because alcohol is alcohol, and guns - are guns, it's not equal things.
haven't got gun while drunken fight - you will not kill your "enemy"(of course can, but in many rare cases), if you have - you can kill him!
Alcohol is often - way to relax, guns too, but people suffered much more from guns, not from alcohol!

So in other words liberal hypocrisy? Ignore the fact that alcohol kills and injures far more people than guns do and just keep spouting the anti-gun rhetoric?

Question, what is it with liberals wanting to ban things and control every part of our lives? I don't give a fuck what liberals do why can't they leave me alone?

Like abortion and gay marriage? Both sides have plenty they want to ban.

 

[BluesLegend]

And for the love of God, quit trying to ban firearms so we have less firearms-related violence.

Fewer guns, fewer gun deaths. At no point will we stop trying to ban what most people long ago stopped needing.

Fewer pools fewer pool deaths, brilliant logic. /sarcasm If left unchecked you freak liberals would run amok with this crap.

 

[2aguy]

Alcohol kills and injures far more people in the US than guns do, why don't you anti-gun grabbers ban alcohol?

Because alcohol is alcohol, and guns - are guns, it's not equal things.
haven't got gun while drunken fight - you will not kill your "enemy"(of course can, but in many rare cases), if you have - you can kill him!
Alcohol is often - way to relax, guns too, but people suffered much more from guns, not from alcohol!

You haven't added the benefits of guns to your equation...each year, on average, guns are used by honest, law abiding ,innocent, non military, non police, people to stop violent crime and save lives 1.6 million times......

Vs.....8-9,000 gun murders

vs. ...6-700 accidental gun deaths...

so guns are a net benefit in the hands of good people......

Law abiding? Kleck has said most defenders are involved in criminal activity.

1) that's not what he said, 2) Kleck's is one of 9 studies.......

Bill we have discussed it many times and it's clear most aren't law abiding. Unless you have some new way to candy coat it.

No, we talked recently and you were proven wrong again...in the 90s carrying a gun was not allowed in almost all the states....innocent, law abiding people carried guns anyway because they needed protection from criminals....kleck made this very clear....he also pointed out that even in the home, it was not always legal to use a gun for self defense...as the cases I pointed out showed...

Chicago, New York, Washington D.C. and other cities, especially in the 90s would not allow law abiding citizens to own or carry guns....even in their homes...people broke that law or didn't know they were breaking the law....

Kleck meant these people, not career criminals......you are dishonest and typical of anti gunners....

 

[Brain357]

Fewer guns, fewer gun deaths. At no point will we stop trying to ban what most people long ago stopped needing.

Hmmm...tell that to Sweden.....a country with gun control and huge crime rates......or Puerto Rico with the Strictest gun control in the United States and one of the highest gun murder rates in the world.....

Your numbers will be crap of course, but post them anyway.

Them ~30, pop. 9.5 mil.
Us ~9,000, pop. 320 mil. Do the math.

Hmmm....but you guys always say that gun control will make these countries heaven.....ask the 6,620 women in Sweden raped and gang raped if gun control is working for them.....or the same for Puerto Rico....with stricter gun control than anywhere else in the U.S....an island nation.....with one of if not the highest gun murder rate in the world.....

See, no numbers and you didn't do the math, as expected.

Asshole, I posted the numbers from the studies...you add em and average them yourself....I'll post it again....

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
DMIa 1978...2,141,512
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
Kleck...2.5 million
Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544
DMIb...1978...1,098,409
Hart...1981...1.797,461
Mauser...1990...1,487,342
Gallup...1993...1,621,377
DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043
Gallup...1991...777,152
Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..



NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000


Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....

The ncvs at 108k is the only study I think would weed out criminal defenders. And in my opinion the most accurate. Keep in mind only about 232 criminals are killed each year in defense.

 

[BluesLegend]

No, it's a gun problem. Every race have bast**s but not every race have guns to use! And as we can see, in many countries(European, but not third-world countries)where weapons are banned - crimes comitted with guns are very rare!

Alcohol kills and injures far more people in the US than guns do, why don't you anti-gun grabbers ban alcohol?

Because alcohol is alcohol, and guns - are guns, it's not equal things.
haven't got gun while drunken fight - you will not kill your "enemy"(of course can, but in many rare cases), if you have - you can kill him!
Alcohol is often - way to relax, guns too, but people suffered much more from guns, not from alcohol!

So in other words liberal hypocrisy? Ignore the fact that alcohol kills and injures far more people than guns do and just keep spouting the anti-gun rhetoric?

Question, what is it with liberals wanting to ban things and control every part of our lives? I don't give a fuck what liberals do why can't they leave me alone?

Like abortion and gay marriage? Both sides have plenty they want to ban.

So you liberals want to ban guns because they kill people but you support killing 50 million helpless human fetuses in the womb? You people are pretty fucked up in the head.

 

[2aguy]

Hmmm...tell that to Sweden.....a country with gun control and huge crime rates......or Puerto Rico with the Strictest gun control in the United States and one of the highest gun murder rates in the world.....

Your numbers will be crap of course, but post them anyway.

Them ~30, pop. 9.5 mil.
Us ~9,000, pop. 320 mil. Do the math.

Hmmm....but you guys always say that gun control will make these countries heaven.....ask the 6,620 women in Sweden raped and gang raped if gun control is working for them.....or the same for Puerto Rico....with stricter gun control than anywhere else in the U.S....an island nation.....with one of if not the highest gun murder rate in the world.....

See, no numbers and you didn't do the math, as expected.

Asshole, I posted the numbers from the studies...you add em and average them yourself....I'll post it again....

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
DMIa 1978...2,141,512
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
Kleck...2.5 million
Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544
DMIb...1978...1,098,409
Hart...1981...1.797,461
Mauser...1990...1,487,342
Gallup...1993...1,621,377
DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043
Gallup...1991...777,152
Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..



NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000


Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....

The ncvs at 108k is the only study I think would weed out criminal defenders. And in my opinion the most accurate. Keep in mind only about 232 criminals are killed each year in defense.

The NCVS is not even close to being as accurate as Kleck's study...they don't even specifically ask if the individual used a gun for self defense while Kleck specifically asks that question........and the NCVS isn't about self defense, it is about being a victim....and misses huge numbers of crimes.....

 

[2aguy]

No, it's a gun problem. Every race have bast**s but not every race have guns to use! And as we can see, in many countries(European, but not third-world countries)where weapons are banned - crimes comitted with guns are very rare!

Alcohol kills and injures far more people in the US than guns do, why don't you anti-gun grabbers ban alcohol?

Because alcohol is alcohol, and guns - are guns, it's not equal things.
haven't got gun while drunken fight - you will not kill your "enemy"(of course can, but in many rare cases), if you have - you can kill him!
Alcohol is often - way to relax, guns too, but people suffered much more from guns, not from alcohol!

So in other words liberal hypocrisy? Ignore the fact that alcohol kills and injures far more people than guns do and just keep spouting the anti-gun rhetoric?

Question, what is it with liberals wanting to ban things and control every part of our lives? I don't give a fuck what liberals do why can't they leave me alone?

Like abortion and gay marriage? Both sides have plenty they want to ban.

So you liberals want to ban guns because they kill people but you support killing 50 million helpless human fetuses in the womb? You people are pretty fucked up in the head.

As long as the fetuses don't use guns...sure........they are fine with that.....

 

[Brain357]

Because alcohol is alcohol, and guns - are guns, it's not equal things.
haven't got gun while drunken fight - you will not kill your "enemy"(of course can, but in many rare cases), if you have - you can kill him!
Alcohol is often - way to relax, guns too, but people suffered much more from guns, not from alcohol!

You haven't added the benefits of guns to your equation...each year, on average, guns are used by honest, law abiding ,innocent, non military, non police, people to stop violent crime and save lives 1.6 million times......

Vs.....8-9,000 gun murders

vs. ...6-700 accidental gun deaths...

so guns are a net benefit in the hands of good people......

Law abiding? Kleck has said most defenders are involved in criminal activity.

1) that's not what he said, 2) Kleck's is one of 9 studies.......

Bill we have discussed it many times and it's clear most aren't law abiding. Unless you have some new way to candy coat it.

No, we talked recently and you were proven wrong again...in the 90s carrying a gun was not allowed in almost all the states....innocent, law abiding people carried guns anyway because they needed protection from criminals....kleck made this very clear....he also pointed out that even in the home, it was not always legal to use a gun for self defense...as the cases I pointed out showed...

Chicago, New York, Washington D.C. and other cities, especially in the 90s would not allow law abiding citizens to own or carry guns....even in their homes...people broke that law or didn't know they were breaking the law....

Kleck meant these people, not career criminals......you are dishonest and typical of anti gunners....

No I wasn't proven wrong. Kleck says clearly they are involved in criminal activity. Even with your explanation they are not law abiding. Anyone willing to break gun laws are breaking others. It's foolish to think otherwise.

 

[Brain357]

No, it's a gun problem. Every race have bast**s but not every race have guns to use! And as we can see, in many countries(European, but not third-world countries)where weapons are banned - crimes comitted with guns are very rare!

Alcohol kills and injures far more people in the US than guns do, why don't you anti-gun grabbers ban alcohol?

Because alcohol is alcohol, and guns - are guns, it's not equal things.
haven't got gun while drunken fight - you will not kill your "enemy"(of course can, but in many rare cases), if you have - you can kill him!
Alcohol is often - way to relax, guns too, but people suffered much more from guns, not from alcohol!

So in other words liberal hypocrisy? Ignore the fact that alcohol kills and injures far more people than guns do and just keep spouting the anti-gun rhetoric?

Question, what is it with liberals wanting to ban things and control every part of our lives? I don't give a fuck what liberals do why can't they leave me alone?

Like abortion and gay marriage? Both sides have plenty they want to ban.

So you liberals want to ban guns because they kill people but you support killing 50 million helpless human fetuses in the womb? You people are pretty fucked up in the head.

Me? I would be fine with a ban on abortion. I was just giving you examples. Both sides want to ban plenty.

 

[2aguy]

You haven't added the benefits of guns to your equation...each year, on average, guns are used by honest, law abiding ,innocent, non military, non police, people to stop violent crime and save lives 1.6 million times......

Vs.....8-9,000 gun murders

vs. ...6-700 accidental gun deaths...

so guns are a net benefit in the hands of good people......

Law abiding? Kleck has said most defenders are involved in criminal activity.

1) that's not what he said, 2) Kleck's is one of 9 studies.......

Bill we have discussed it many times and it's clear most aren't law abiding. Unless you have some new way to candy coat it.

No, we talked recently and you were proven wrong again...in the 90s carrying a gun was not allowed in almost all the states....innocent, law abiding people carried guns anyway because they needed protection from criminals....kleck made this very clear....he also pointed out that even in the home, it was not always legal to use a gun for self defense...as the cases I pointed out showed...

Chicago, New York, Washington D.C. and other cities, especially in the 90s would not allow law abiding citizens to own or carry guns....even in their homes...people broke that law or didn't know they were breaking the law....

Kleck meant these people, not career criminals......you are dishonest and typical of anti gunners....

No I wasn't proven wrong. Kleck says clearly they are involved in criminal activity. Even with your explanation they are not law abiding. Anyone willing to break gun laws are breaking others. It's foolish to think otherwise.

his work again....


Kleck talking specifically about his respondents....and why the National Crime Victimization survey is a bad study for gun self defense research.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the other thread I gave several examples of why you are wrong brain.....this shows Kleck is referring to law abiding citizens not career criminals.........

 

[Brain357]

Law abiding? Kleck has said most defenders are involved in criminal activity.

1) that's not what he said, 2) Kleck's is one of 9 studies.......

Bill we have discussed it many times and it's clear most aren't law abiding. Unless you have some new way to candy coat it.

No, we talked recently and you were proven wrong again...in the 90s carrying a gun was not allowed in almost all the states....innocent, law abiding people carried guns anyway because they needed protection from criminals....kleck made this very clear....he also pointed out that even in the home, it was not always legal to use a gun for self defense...as the cases I pointed out showed...

Chicago, New York, Washington D.C. and other cities, especially in the 90s would not allow law abiding citizens to own or carry guns....even in their homes...people broke that law or didn't know they were breaking the law....

Kleck meant these people, not career criminals......you are dishonest and typical of anti gunners....

No I wasn't proven wrong. Kleck says clearly they are involved in criminal activity. Even with your explanation they are not law abiding. Anyone willing to break gun laws are breaking others. It's foolish to think otherwise.

his work again....


Kleck talking specifically about his respondents....and why the National Crime Victimization survey is a bad study for gun self defense research.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the other thread I gave several examples of why you are wrong brain.....this shows Kleck is referring to law abiding citizens not career criminals.........

And he defends why he has more crimes defended than crimes were reported by stating most defenders are involved in criminal activity and don't report them. So the gun problem people are also a majority of the defenders.

 

[2aguy]

Sorry brain, he addresses that lie in his discussion of why hemenway was wrong....

Here is what Kleck was pointing out....


Brooklyn Dad Facing Jail for Shooting Intruder - ABC News

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

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

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

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

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

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

The local paper called Dixon a hero. He is a Navy veteran, a father of two, and had never been in trouble with the law.
‘Hero’ Headed to Rikers?

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

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

 

[Brain357]

Sorry brain, he addresses that lie in his discussion of why hemenway was wrong....

Here is what Kleck was pointing out....


Brooklyn Dad Facing Jail for Shooting Intruder - ABC News

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

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

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

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

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

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

The local paper called Dixon a hero. He is a Navy veteran, a father of two, and had never been in trouble with the law.
‘Hero’ Headed to Rikers?

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

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

Having shot someone I don't think this one went unreported.

Also he was not law abiding.

 

[2aguy]

1) that's not what he said, 2) Kleck's is one of 9 studies.......

Bill we have discussed it many times and it's clear most aren't law abiding. Unless you have some new way to candy coat it.

No, we talked recently and you were proven wrong again...in the 90s carrying a gun was not allowed in almost all the states....innocent, law abiding people carried guns anyway because they needed protection from criminals....kleck made this very clear....he also pointed out that even in the home, it was not always legal to use a gun for self defense...as the cases I pointed out showed...

Chicago, New York, Washington D.C. and other cities, especially in the 90s would not allow law abiding citizens to own or carry guns....even in their homes...people broke that law or didn't know they were breaking the law....

Kleck meant these people, not career criminals......you are dishonest and typical of anti gunners....

No I wasn't proven wrong. Kleck says clearly they are involved in criminal activity. Even with your explanation they are not law abiding. Anyone willing to break gun laws are breaking others. It's foolish to think otherwise.

his work again....


Kleck talking specifically about his respondents....and why the National Crime Victimization survey is a bad study for gun self defense research.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the other thread I gave several examples of why you are wrong brain.....this shows Kleck is referring to law abiding citizens not career criminals.........

And he defends why he has more crimes defended than crimes were reported by stating most defenders are involved in criminal activity and don't report them. So the gun problem people are also a majority of the defenders.

This takes on hemenway's false claims...

Kleck-Gertz DGU Freq Study gunsandcrime