USA's "gun problem"

[Brain357]

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

I think hemenway is obviously right.

 

[2aguy]

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

I think hemenway is obviously right.

hemenway is a clown......

Here is a detailed look at why hemenway is a clown.....and an irrational anti gunner who let his fear of guns cloud his research.....keeping in mind that when Kleck did his research he was also anti gun.....

Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

Regarding possibility (2), Kleck and Gertz (1995, p. 174) noted that most of the reported DGUs were linked with the types of crimes––burglaries, robberies, and sexual assaults––where there is little possibility of participants being honestly mistaken about who was the victim and who was the offender, or whether their gun use was genuinely defensive. While some respondents may well have consciously misrepresented aggressive actions as defensive, and a very few might have consciously invented entirely fictitious events, it is hard to see how respondents could report an account of a real burglary, robbery, or sexual assault in which they were aggressors and somehow unconsciously or honestly distort their own criminal, aggressive use of a gun into a “defensive” use.

 

[Brain357]

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

I think hemenway is obviously right.

hemenway is a clown......

Here is a detailed look at why hemenway is a clown.....and an irrational anti gunner who let his fear of guns cloud his research.....keeping in mind that when Kleck did his research he was also anti gun.....

Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

No I think anyone with common sense should question klecks findings. Only 232 criminals killed in defense each year. That alone should make people question it. 6-700 people accidently killed each year. But when those gun owners pull guns in criminals then they are really safe.

 

[2aguy]

and more on why hemenway is wrong...

Kleck and Gertz provided a detailed explanation of why the NCVS grossly underestimates DGU frequency, and noted that its DGU estimates had been repeatedly disconfirmed by other surveys (1995, pp. 153-157). Still, Hemenway gave the impression that he was using the NCVS estimates as a standard against which he judged the DGU estimates of other surveys (Hemenway 1997b, pp. 1431-1432). In this connection, he falsely claimed that the NCVS asks “about self-defense gun use” (p. 1432) when in fact, as Kleck and Gertz pointed out, one of the many problems with the NCVS as a vehicle for estimating DGU frequency is that it never directly asks respondents about DGU (1995, p. 155). Instead it merely provides respondents with an opportunity to volunteer information about a DGU in response to a general question about self-protection actions.

As Tom Smith, Director of the National Opinion Research Center, has noted, specifically in connection with the NCVS: “Indirect questions that rely on a respondent volunteering a specific element as part of a broad and unfocussed inquiry uniformly lead to undercounts of the particular of interest” (Smith 1997, pp. 1462-1463).

Nor did Hemenway acknowledge that the NCVS is the only survey that has ever yielded annual DGU estimates under 700,000, and that its estimates, centering around 80,000, are far below those generated by at least fifteen other surveys (Kleck and Gertz 1995, pp. 153-159). Instead, he inverted reality by falsely hinting that it was the NSDS estimate that was the deviant result.

It is tempting to think that the NCVS estimates should be given greater credibility than any one survey because the NCVS has been continuously fielded since 1973, and thus could be regarded as, in some sense, a series of surveys rather than just one survey, which have provided independent confirmation of low DGU estimates. Hemenway himself, however, noted that “consistency of findings is irrelevant when the methodology among...the surveys is similar.” He made this point with respect to the DGU surveys, but it is far more applicable to the NCVS, since great care has been taken to keep the NCVS, despite periodic revisions, consistent over time. In contrast, there was, contrary to Hemenway’s claims, great diversity in methodology among the DGU surveys (Kleck and Gertz 1995, pp. 157-160).

 

[2aguy]

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

I think hemenway is obviously right.

hemenway is a clown......

Here is a detailed look at why hemenway is a clown.....and an irrational anti gunner who let his fear of guns cloud his research.....keeping in mind that when Kleck did his research he was also anti gun.....

Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

No I think anyone with common sense should question klecks findings. Only 232 criminals killed in defense each year. That alone should make people question it. 6-700 people accidently killed each year. But when those gun owners pull guns in criminals then they are really safe.

Again brain....common sense prevails...the studies show....that when confronted by armed victims criminals run away...most of the time...when they don't, the victim doesn't have to shoot and merely holds the criminal for the police...when they do shoot they most often wound, not kill the attacker who is later arrested by police and in the rarest of defensive gun uses, the criminal is shot and killed by the victim....since 1) normal, law abiding people are not intent on killing other people, even criminals and 2) criminals are not interested in getting shot, let alone killed.....

So yes....it is a great testament to the over 320 million people in this country...with over 11.1 million carrying guns for self defense and the 88 million households with guns....that they only feel the need to shoot the attacker to the point where 232 are killed.......that is how good Americans are......they are not wild eyed killers looking to put someone in the ground for fun.....

And with 88 million households with guns in them....6-700 accidental gun deaths is a tiny, though sad, number. Since most people interact with guns in non lethal settings, there is no reason the numbers would be different.....people get careless with common interactions with guns....but when they are in the middle of an attack, they are very focused on what is happening.

 

[Brain357]

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

I think hemenway is obviously right.

hemenway is a clown......

Here is a detailed look at why hemenway is a clown.....and an irrational anti gunner who let his fear of guns cloud his research.....keeping in mind that when Kleck did his research he was also anti gun.....

Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

No I think anyone with common sense should question klecks findings. Only 232 criminals killed in defense each year. That alone should make people question it. 6-700 people accidently killed each year. But when those gun owners pull guns in criminals then they are really safe.

Again brain....common sense prevails...the studies show....that when confronted by armed victims criminals run away...most of the time...when they don't, the victim doesn't have to shoot and merely holds the criminal for the police...when they do shoot they most often wound, not kill the attacker who is later arrested by police and in the rarest of defensive gun uses, the criminal is shot and killed by the victim....since 1) normal, law abiding people are not intent on killing other people, even criminals and 2) criminals are not interested in getting shot, let alone killed.....

So yes....it is a great testament to the over 320 million people in this country...with over 11.1 million carrying guns for self defense and the 88 million households with guns....that they only feel the need to shoot the attacker to the point where 232 are killed.......that is how good Americans are......they are not wild eyed killers looking to put someone in the ground for fun.....

And with 88 million households with guns in them....6-700 accidental gun deaths is a tiny, though sad, number. Since most people interact with guns in non lethal settings, there is no reason the numbers would be different.....people get careless with common interactions with guns....but when they are in the middle of an attack, they are very focused on what is happening.

I've shown you a study of 500 defenses and 30% of the time the criminal is shot and killed...

 

[williepete]

 

[2aguy]

This takes on hemenway's false claims...

Kleck-Gertz DGU Freq Study gunsandcrime

I think hemenway is obviously right.

hemenway is a clown......

Here is a detailed look at why hemenway is a clown.....and an irrational anti gunner who let his fear of guns cloud his research.....keeping in mind that when Kleck did his research he was also anti gun.....

Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

No I think anyone with common sense should question klecks findings. Only 232 criminals killed in defense each year. That alone should make people question it. 6-700 people accidently killed each year. But when those gun owners pull guns in criminals then they are really safe.

Again brain....common sense prevails...the studies show....that when confronted by armed victims criminals run away...most of the time...when they don't, the victim doesn't have to shoot and merely holds the criminal for the police...when they do shoot they most often wound, not kill the attacker who is later arrested by police and in the rarest of defensive gun uses, the criminal is shot and killed by the victim....since 1) normal, law abiding people are not intent on killing other people, even criminals and 2) criminals are not interested in getting shot, let alone killed.....

So yes....it is a great testament to the over 320 million people in this country...with over 11.1 million carrying guns for self defense and the 88 million households with guns....that they only feel the need to shoot the attacker to the point where 232 are killed.......that is how good Americans are......they are not wild eyed killers looking to put someone in the ground for fun.....

And with 88 million households with guns in them....6-700 accidental gun deaths is a tiny, though sad, number. Since most people interact with guns in non lethal settings, there is no reason the numbers would be different.....people get careless with common interactions with guns....but when they are in the middle of an attack, they are very focused on what is happening.

I've shown you a study of 500 defenses and 30% of the time the criminal is shot and killed...

What 500 defenses....and if you look at the research there are more kills than show up in the FBI data base....remember....the FBI data is not perfect...

 

[2aguy]

This takes on hemenway's false claims...

Kleck-Gertz DGU Freq Study gunsandcrime

I think hemenway is obviously right.

hemenway is a clown......

Here is a detailed look at why hemenway is a clown.....and an irrational anti gunner who let his fear of guns cloud his research.....keeping in mind that when Kleck did his research he was also anti gun.....

Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

No I think anyone with common sense should question klecks findings. Only 232 criminals killed in defense each year. That alone should make people question it. 6-700 people accidently killed each year. But when those gun owners pull guns in criminals then they are really safe.

Again brain....common sense prevails...the studies show....that when confronted by armed victims criminals run away...most of the time...when they don't, the victim doesn't have to shoot and merely holds the criminal for the police...when they do shoot they most often wound, not kill the attacker who is later arrested by police and in the rarest of defensive gun uses, the criminal is shot and killed by the victim....since 1) normal, law abiding people are not intent on killing other people, even criminals and 2) criminals are not interested in getting shot, let alone killed.....

So yes....it is a great testament to the over 320 million people in this country...with over 11.1 million carrying guns for self defense and the 88 million households with guns....that they only feel the need to shoot the attacker to the point where 232 are killed.......that is how good Americans are......they are not wild eyed killers looking to put someone in the ground for fun.....

And with 88 million households with guns in them....6-700 accidental gun deaths is a tiny, though sad, number. Since most people interact with guns in non lethal settings, there is no reason the numbers would be different.....people get careless with common interactions with guns....but when they are in the middle of an attack, they are very focused on what is happening.

I've shown you a study of 500 defenses and 30% of the time the criminal is shot and killed...

Oh....you mean the NRA site called the "Armed Citizen" where the NRA collects news stories about shooting incidents, and someone looked at that collection and made some observations about the incidents.........you know those stories are collected over a period of years...right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, it's a gun problem.

300,000,000 guns
8855 gun-related murders (2012)
1 gun in 33879 used to commit murder
0.00295% of guns used to commit murder
99.99705% of guns NOT used to commit murder.
Where's the problem, and what's the solution?

 

[2aguy]

I think hemenway is obviously right.

hemenway is a clown......

Here is a detailed look at why hemenway is a clown.....and an irrational anti gunner who let his fear of guns cloud his research.....keeping in mind that when Kleck did his research he was also anti gun.....

Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

No I think anyone with common sense should question klecks findings. Only 232 criminals killed in defense each year. That alone should make people question it. 6-700 people accidently killed each year. But when those gun owners pull guns in criminals then they are really safe.

Again brain....common sense prevails...the studies show....that when confronted by armed victims criminals run away...most of the time...when they don't, the victim doesn't have to shoot and merely holds the criminal for the police...when they do shoot they most often wound, not kill the attacker who is later arrested by police and in the rarest of defensive gun uses, the criminal is shot and killed by the victim....since 1) normal, law abiding people are not intent on killing other people, even criminals and 2) criminals are not interested in getting shot, let alone killed.....

So yes....it is a great testament to the over 320 million people in this country...with over 11.1 million carrying guns for self defense and the 88 million households with guns....that they only feel the need to shoot the attacker to the point where 232 are killed.......that is how good Americans are......they are not wild eyed killers looking to put someone in the ground for fun.....

And with 88 million households with guns in them....6-700 accidental gun deaths is a tiny, though sad, number. Since most people interact with guns in non lethal settings, there is no reason the numbers would be different.....people get careless with common interactions with guns....but when they are in the middle of an attack, they are very focused on what is happening.

I've shown you a study of 500 defenses and 30% of the time the criminal is shot and killed...

What 500 defenses....and if you look at the research there are more kills than show up in the FBI data base....remember....the FBI data is not perfect...

Here is a more detailed look at defensive shooting incidents from 2003 to 2011....same idea as the NRA site, but more samples over a longer period of time....

From the book, or White Paper from CATO...."Tough Targets"

"The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports also significantly overstate murders and understate defensive gun uses. If the police investigat a homicide and ask the district attorney to charge someone with murder or manslaughter, that is reported as a murder to the Uniform Crime Reports program. But district attorney's will often investigate a case in the weeks afterward, find evidence that the killing was justifiable or excusable homicide, and drop the case entirely.

Further, some of the charges, are found to be justifiable or excusable homocide by judges and juries during a trial. this is very often the case in spousal abuse situations where a woman defends herself or her children from an estranged husband.9 A killing initially charged as a murder or negligent homicide that is later reclassified as a justifiable or excusable homicide, will not be moved in the Uniform Crime Reports data from the homicide column to the justifiable homicide column."

---------------------------
They then go on to explain how this can distort numbers by siting an article from Time magazine that looked at deaths in one day and then went back to check on the cases a year later....the 14 non law enforcement justifiable homicides went up to 28 because a year later the 14 other gun crimes were found to be justifiable homicides....and at least 43 other murder cases had not gone to trial....


And they say because of this.......

"clearly, the FBI justifiable homicide data is not particularly meaningful for understanding defensive gun uses that result in death-and is useless for understanding the vastly larger number of defensive gun uses that do not result in death."

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

The Data Set

At one time, it was widely believed that a fairly large percentage of defensive gun uses
might be criminals defending themselves from other criminals: marijuana growers protecting their crops, gang members de- fending themselves from other gang mem- bers, a falling out between members of a criminal enterprise. That was only specula- tion. For a long time, there was not much in the way of actual data.

Since the survey data has severe limita- tions with respect to defensive gun uses, collecting accounts of self-defense as they are reported in news outlets may be a better method of assessing the frequency and na- ture of self-defense with firearms. The data set supporting this paper is derived from a collection of news stories published between October 2003 and November 2011.12

There is a selection bias problem with the method of gathering news stories. Many defensive gun uses never make the news. Sometimes that is because the person us- ing a gun in self-defense saw no need to call the police—he or she scared off the bad guy. In some cases, the victim might not want to explain to the police that he has a gun, perhaps because he is a felon, or perhaps because he lives in a jurisdiction with very restrictive gun control laws. Sometimes the police do get called, but the officers do not find the circumstances sufficiently impor- tant to issue a press release. After all, “Man Scares away Burglar, No Shots Fired” is not particularly newsworthy, unless you live in a very small town.

In spite of the selection bias problem, there is one enormous advantage to this model of gathering data: it provides a rich set of information about motives, circum- stances, victims, and criminals. It also pro- vides a sufficiently large database (almost 5,000 incidents), randomly selected, so that some conclusions about the nature of armed self-defense in America can be drawn. Best of all, whatever the deficiencies of news reporting, the model is not completely de- pendent on the honesty or accuracy of the respondent—unlike some of the questions raised with respect to defensive gun use sur- veys.

As to wether they included criminals using guns defensively........

In a few instances, we have includ- ed cases where the initial news reports were clearly of legitimate defensive gun uses, but where law enforcement or a prosecutor chose to charge a gun owner.
Those are relatively rare; when there was any doubt as to whether a use of a gun might be criminal, it was not included in our list of news accounts until such time as there was confirmation that the defensive gun use was deemed lawful. In only a handful of cases did later investiga- tion turn an initial defensive gun use into a criminalcharge.Themostcommonscenario is that law enforcement officers chose not to prosecute based on the evidence at the scene and testimony of witnesses, but referred the case to a grand jury for review.

 

[Brain357]

I think hemenway is obviously right.

hemenway is a clown......

Here is a detailed look at why hemenway is a clown.....and an irrational anti gunner who let his fear of guns cloud his research.....keeping in mind that when Kleck did his research he was also anti gun.....

Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

No I think anyone with common sense should question klecks findings. Only 232 criminals killed in defense each year. That alone should make people question it. 6-700 people accidently killed each year. But when those gun owners pull guns in criminals then they are really safe.

Again brain....common sense prevails...the studies show....that when confronted by armed victims criminals run away...most of the time...when they don't, the victim doesn't have to shoot and merely holds the criminal for the police...when they do shoot they most often wound, not kill the attacker who is later arrested by police and in the rarest of defensive gun uses, the criminal is shot and killed by the victim....since 1) normal, law abiding people are not intent on killing other people, even criminals and 2) criminals are not interested in getting shot, let alone killed.....

So yes....it is a great testament to the over 320 million people in this country...with over 11.1 million carrying guns for self defense and the 88 million households with guns....that they only feel the need to shoot the attacker to the point where 232 are killed.......that is how good Americans are......they are not wild eyed killers looking to put someone in the ground for fun.....

And with 88 million households with guns in them....6-700 accidental gun deaths is a tiny, though sad, number. Since most people interact with guns in non lethal settings, there is no reason the numbers would be different.....people get careless with common interactions with guns....but when they are in the middle of an attack, they are very focused on what is happening.

I've shown you a study of 500 defenses and 30% of the time the criminal is shot and killed...

Oh....you mean the NRA site called the "Armed Citizen" where the NRA collects news stories about shooting incidents, and someone looked at that collection and made some observations about the incidents.........you know those stories are collected over a period of years...right?

Believe it uses 5 years worth. The time period wouldn't change the outcome.

 

[Brain357]

hemenway is a clown......

Here is a detailed look at why hemenway is a clown.....and an irrational anti gunner who let his fear of guns cloud his research.....keeping in mind that when Kleck did his research he was also anti gun.....

Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

No I think anyone with common sense should question klecks findings. Only 232 criminals killed in defense each year. That alone should make people question it. 6-700 people accidently killed each year. But when those gun owners pull guns in criminals then they are really safe.

Again brain....common sense prevails...the studies show....that when confronted by armed victims criminals run away...most of the time...when they don't, the victim doesn't have to shoot and merely holds the criminal for the police...when they do shoot they most often wound, not kill the attacker who is later arrested by police and in the rarest of defensive gun uses, the criminal is shot and killed by the victim....since 1) normal, law abiding people are not intent on killing other people, even criminals and 2) criminals are not interested in getting shot, let alone killed.....

So yes....it is a great testament to the over 320 million people in this country...with over 11.1 million carrying guns for self defense and the 88 million households with guns....that they only feel the need to shoot the attacker to the point where 232 are killed.......that is how good Americans are......they are not wild eyed killers looking to put someone in the ground for fun.....

And with 88 million households with guns in them....6-700 accidental gun deaths is a tiny, though sad, number. Since most people interact with guns in non lethal settings, there is no reason the numbers would be different.....people get careless with common interactions with guns....but when they are in the middle of an attack, they are very focused on what is happening.

I've shown you a study of 500 defenses and 30% of the time the criminal is shot and killed...

What 500 defenses....and if you look at the research there are more kills than show up in the FBI data base....remember....the FBI data is not perfect...

Here is a more detailed look at defensive shooting incidents from 2003 to 2011....same idea as the NRA site, but more samples over a longer period of time....

From the book, or White Paper from CATO...."Tough Targets"

"The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports also significantly overstate murders and understate defensive gun uses. If the police investigat a homicide and ask the district attorney to charge someone with murder or manslaughter, that is reported as a murder to the Uniform Crime Reports program. But district attorney's will often investigate a case in the weeks afterward, find evidence that the killing was justifiable or excusable homicide, and drop the case entirely.

Further, some of the charges, are found to be justifiable or excusable homocide by judges and juries during a trial. this is very often the case in spousal abuse situations where a woman defends herself or her children from an estranged husband.9 A killing initially charged as a murder or negligent homicide that is later reclassified as a justifiable or excusable homicide, will not be moved in the Uniform Crime Reports data from the homicide column to the justifiable homicide column."

---------------------------
They then go on to explain how this can distort numbers by siting an article from Time magazine that looked at deaths in one day and then went back to check on the cases a year later....the 14 non law enforcement justifiable homicides went up to 28 because a year later the 14 other gun crimes were found to be justifiable homicides....and at least 43 other murder cases had not gone to trial....


And they say because of this.......

"clearly, the FBI justifiable homicide data is not particularly meaningful for understanding defensive gun uses that result in death-and is useless for understanding the vastly larger number of defensive gun uses that do not result in death."

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

The Data Set

At one time, it was widely believed that a fairly large percentage of defensive gun uses
might be criminals defending themselves from other criminals: marijuana growers protecting their crops, gang members de- fending themselves from other gang mem- bers, a falling out between members of a criminal enterprise. That was only specula- tion. For a long time, there was not much in the way of actual data.

Since the survey data has severe limita- tions with respect to defensive gun uses, collecting accounts of self-defense as they are reported in news outlets may be a better method of assessing the frequency and na- ture of self-defense with firearms. The data set supporting this paper is derived from a collection of news stories published between October 2003 and November 2011.12

There is a selection bias problem with the method of gathering news stories. Many defensive gun uses never make the news. Sometimes that is because the person us- ing a gun in self-defense saw no need to call the police—he or she scared off the bad guy. In some cases, the victim might not want to explain to the police that he has a gun, perhaps because he is a felon, or perhaps because he lives in a jurisdiction with very restrictive gun control laws. Sometimes the police do get called, but the officers do not find the circumstances sufficiently impor- tant to issue a press release. After all, “Man Scares away Burglar, No Shots Fired” is not particularly newsworthy, unless you live in a very small town.

In spite of the selection bias problem, there is one enormous advantage to this model of gathering data: it provides a rich set of information about motives, circum- stances, victims, and criminals. It also pro- vides a sufficiently large database (almost 5,000 incidents), randomly selected, so that some conclusions about the nature of armed self-defense in America can be drawn. Best of all, whatever the deficiencies of news reporting, the model is not completely de- pendent on the honesty or accuracy of the respondent—unlike some of the questions raised with respect to defensive gun use sur- veys.

As to wether they included criminals using guns defensively........

In a few instances, we have includ- ed cases where the initial news reports were clearly of legitimate defensive gun uses, but where law enforcement or a prosecutor chose to charge a gun owner.
Those are relatively rare; when there was any doubt as to whether a use of a gun might be criminal, it was not included in our list of news accounts until such time as there was confirmation that the defensive gun use was deemed lawful. In only a handful of cases did later investiga- tion turn an initial defensive gun use into a criminalcharge.Themostcommonscenario is that law enforcement officers chose not to prosecute based on the evidence at the scene and testimony of witnesses, but referred the case to a grand jury for review.

The very right wing pro gun Cato institute? Sorry but I would believe nothing they say.

 

[2aguy]

No I think anyone with common sense should question klecks findings. Only 232 criminals killed in defense each year. That alone should make people question it. 6-700 people accidently killed each year. But when those gun owners pull guns in criminals then they are really safe.

Again brain....common sense prevails...the studies show....that when confronted by armed victims criminals run away...most of the time...when they don't, the victim doesn't have to shoot and merely holds the criminal for the police...when they do shoot they most often wound, not kill the attacker who is later arrested by police and in the rarest of defensive gun uses, the criminal is shot and killed by the victim....since 1) normal, law abiding people are not intent on killing other people, even criminals and 2) criminals are not interested in getting shot, let alone killed.....

So yes....it is a great testament to the over 320 million people in this country...with over 11.1 million carrying guns for self defense and the 88 million households with guns....that they only feel the need to shoot the attacker to the point where 232 are killed.......that is how good Americans are......they are not wild eyed killers looking to put someone in the ground for fun.....

And with 88 million households with guns in them....6-700 accidental gun deaths is a tiny, though sad, number. Since most people interact with guns in non lethal settings, there is no reason the numbers would be different.....people get careless with common interactions with guns....but when they are in the middle of an attack, they are very focused on what is happening.

I've shown you a study of 500 defenses and 30% of the time the criminal is shot and killed...

What 500 defenses....and if you look at the research there are more kills than show up in the FBI data base....remember....the FBI data is not perfect...

Here is a more detailed look at defensive shooting incidents from 2003 to 2011....same idea as the NRA site, but more samples over a longer period of time....

From the book, or White Paper from CATO...."Tough Targets"

"The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports also significantly overstate murders and understate defensive gun uses. If the police investigat a homicide and ask the district attorney to charge someone with murder or manslaughter, that is reported as a murder to the Uniform Crime Reports program. But district attorney's will often investigate a case in the weeks afterward, find evidence that the killing was justifiable or excusable homicide, and drop the case entirely.

Further, some of the charges, are found to be justifiable or excusable homocide by judges and juries during a trial. this is very often the case in spousal abuse situations where a woman defends herself or her children from an estranged husband.9 A killing initially charged as a murder or negligent homicide that is later reclassified as a justifiable or excusable homicide, will not be moved in the Uniform Crime Reports data from the homicide column to the justifiable homicide column."

---------------------------
They then go on to explain how this can distort numbers by siting an article from Time magazine that looked at deaths in one day and then went back to check on the cases a year later....the 14 non law enforcement justifiable homicides went up to 28 because a year later the 14 other gun crimes were found to be justifiable homicides....and at least 43 other murder cases had not gone to trial....


And they say because of this.......

"clearly, the FBI justifiable homicide data is not particularly meaningful for understanding defensive gun uses that result in death-and is useless for understanding the vastly larger number of defensive gun uses that do not result in death."

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

The Data Set

At one time, it was widely believed that a fairly large percentage of defensive gun uses
might be criminals defending themselves from other criminals: marijuana growers protecting their crops, gang members de- fending themselves from other gang mem- bers, a falling out between members of a criminal enterprise. That was only specula- tion. For a long time, there was not much in the way of actual data.

Since the survey data has severe limita- tions with respect to defensive gun uses, collecting accounts of self-defense as they are reported in news outlets may be a better method of assessing the frequency and na- ture of self-defense with firearms. The data set supporting this paper is derived from a collection of news stories published between October 2003 and November 2011.12

There is a selection bias problem with the method of gathering news stories. Many defensive gun uses never make the news. Sometimes that is because the person us- ing a gun in self-defense saw no need to call the police—he or she scared off the bad guy. In some cases, the victim might not want to explain to the police that he has a gun, perhaps because he is a felon, or perhaps because he lives in a jurisdiction with very restrictive gun control laws. Sometimes the police do get called, but the officers do not find the circumstances sufficiently impor- tant to issue a press release. After all, “Man Scares away Burglar, No Shots Fired” is not particularly newsworthy, unless you live in a very small town.

In spite of the selection bias problem, there is one enormous advantage to this model of gathering data: it provides a rich set of information about motives, circum- stances, victims, and criminals. It also pro- vides a sufficiently large database (almost 5,000 incidents), randomly selected, so that some conclusions about the nature of armed self-defense in America can be drawn. Best of all, whatever the deficiencies of news reporting, the model is not completely de- pendent on the honesty or accuracy of the respondent—unlike some of the questions raised with respect to defensive gun use sur- veys.

As to wether they included criminals using guns defensively........

In a few instances, we have includ- ed cases where the initial news reports were clearly of legitimate defensive gun uses, but where law enforcement or a prosecutor chose to charge a gun owner.
Those are relatively rare; when there was any doubt as to whether a use of a gun might be criminal, it was not included in our list of news accounts until such time as there was confirmation that the defensive gun use was deemed lawful. In only a handful of cases did later investiga- tion turn an initial defensive gun use into a criminalcharge.Themostcommonscenario is that law enforcement officers chose not to prosecute based on the evidence at the scene and testimony of witnesses, but referred the case to a grand jury for review.

The very right wing pro gun Cato institute? Sorry but I would believe nothing they say.

I still find it funny that you don't like Cato.....and yet will use the NRA site to come to wrong conclusions...and again...I am a life member of the NRA and I like "The Armed Citizen" because it collects these stories in one location....but it isn't scientific.......neither is Cato, and they admit that........but I don't know why you choose one right wing site over another......

 

[2aguy]

Cato points out the problem with their observations and this would also include the NRA "The Armed citizen"....

There is a selection bias problem with the method of gathering news stories. Many defensive gun uses never make the news. Sometimes that is because the person us- ing a gun in self-defense saw no need to call the police—he or she scared off the bad guy. In some cases, the victim might not want to explain to the police that he has a gun, perhaps because he is a felon, or perhaps because he lives in a jurisdiction with very restrictive gun control laws. Sometimes the police do get called, but the officers do not find the circumstances sufficiently impor- tant to issue a press release. After all, “Man Scares away Burglar, No Shots Fired” is not particularly newsworthy, unless you live in a very small town.

In spite of the selection bias problem, there is one enormous advantage to this model of gathering data: it provides a rich set of information about motives, circum- stances, victims, and criminals. It also pro- vides a sufficiently large database (almost 5,000 incidents), randomly selected, so that some conclusions about the nature of armed self-defense in America can be drawn. Best of all, whatever the deficiencies of news reporting, the model is not completely de- pendent on the honesty or accuracy of the respondent—unlike some of the questions raised with respect to defensive gun use sur- veys.

 

[2aguy]

The Cato book based on their paper is interesting reading....they have a lot of defensive gun use stories and some interesting insights into the debate.....

 

[Brain357]

Again brain....common sense prevails...the studies show....that when confronted by armed victims criminals run away...most of the time...when they don't, the victim doesn't have to shoot and merely holds the criminal for the police...when they do shoot they most often wound, not kill the attacker who is later arrested by police and in the rarest of defensive gun uses, the criminal is shot and killed by the victim....since 1) normal, law abiding people are not intent on killing other people, even criminals and 2) criminals are not interested in getting shot, let alone killed.....

So yes....it is a great testament to the over 320 million people in this country...with over 11.1 million carrying guns for self defense and the 88 million households with guns....that they only feel the need to shoot the attacker to the point where 232 are killed.......that is how good Americans are......they are not wild eyed killers looking to put someone in the ground for fun.....

And with 88 million households with guns in them....6-700 accidental gun deaths is a tiny, though sad, number. Since most people interact with guns in non lethal settings, there is no reason the numbers would be different.....people get careless with common interactions with guns....but when they are in the middle of an attack, they are very focused on what is happening.

I've shown you a study of 500 defenses and 30% of the time the criminal is shot and killed...

What 500 defenses....and if you look at the research there are more kills than show up in the FBI data base....remember....the FBI data is not perfect...

Here is a more detailed look at defensive shooting incidents from 2003 to 2011....same idea as the NRA site, but more samples over a longer period of time....

From the book, or White Paper from CATO...."Tough Targets"

"The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports also significantly overstate murders and understate defensive gun uses. If the police investigat a homicide and ask the district attorney to charge someone with murder or manslaughter, that is reported as a murder to the Uniform Crime Reports program. But district attorney's will often investigate a case in the weeks afterward, find evidence that the killing was justifiable or excusable homicide, and drop the case entirely.

Further, some of the charges, are found to be justifiable or excusable homocide by judges and juries during a trial. this is very often the case in spousal abuse situations where a woman defends herself or her children from an estranged husband.9 A killing initially charged as a murder or negligent homicide that is later reclassified as a justifiable or excusable homicide, will not be moved in the Uniform Crime Reports data from the homicide column to the justifiable homicide column."

---------------------------
They then go on to explain how this can distort numbers by siting an article from Time magazine that looked at deaths in one day and then went back to check on the cases a year later....the 14 non law enforcement justifiable homicides went up to 28 because a year later the 14 other gun crimes were found to be justifiable homicides....and at least 43 other murder cases had not gone to trial....


And they say because of this.......

"clearly, the FBI justifiable homicide data is not particularly meaningful for understanding defensive gun uses that result in death-and is useless for understanding the vastly larger number of defensive gun uses that do not result in death."

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

The Data Set

At one time, it was widely believed that a fairly large percentage of defensive gun uses
might be criminals defending themselves from other criminals: marijuana growers protecting their crops, gang members de- fending themselves from other gang mem- bers, a falling out between members of a criminal enterprise. That was only specula- tion. For a long time, there was not much in the way of actual data.

Since the survey data has severe limita- tions with respect to defensive gun uses, collecting accounts of self-defense as they are reported in news outlets may be a better method of assessing the frequency and na- ture of self-defense with firearms. The data set supporting this paper is derived from a collection of news stories published between October 2003 and November 2011.12

There is a selection bias problem with the method of gathering news stories. Many defensive gun uses never make the news. Sometimes that is because the person us- ing a gun in self-defense saw no need to call the police—he or she scared off the bad guy. In some cases, the victim might not want to explain to the police that he has a gun, perhaps because he is a felon, or perhaps because he lives in a jurisdiction with very restrictive gun control laws. Sometimes the police do get called, but the officers do not find the circumstances sufficiently impor- tant to issue a press release. After all, “Man Scares away Burglar, No Shots Fired” is not particularly newsworthy, unless you live in a very small town.

In spite of the selection bias problem, there is one enormous advantage to this model of gathering data: it provides a rich set of information about motives, circum- stances, victims, and criminals. It also pro- vides a sufficiently large database (almost 5,000 incidents), randomly selected, so that some conclusions about the nature of armed self-defense in America can be drawn. Best of all, whatever the deficiencies of news reporting, the model is not completely de- pendent on the honesty or accuracy of the respondent—unlike some of the questions raised with respect to defensive gun use sur- veys.

As to wether they included criminals using guns defensively........

In a few instances, we have includ- ed cases where the initial news reports were clearly of legitimate defensive gun uses, but where law enforcement or a prosecutor chose to charge a gun owner.
Those are relatively rare; when there was any doubt as to whether a use of a gun might be criminal, it was not included in our list of news accounts until such time as there was confirmation that the defensive gun use was deemed lawful. In only a handful of cases did later investiga- tion turn an initial defensive gun use into a criminalcharge.Themostcommonscenario is that law enforcement officers chose not to prosecute based on the evidence at the scene and testimony of witnesses, but referred the case to a grand jury for review.

The very right wing pro gun Cato institute? Sorry but I would believe nothing they say.

I still find it funny that you don't like Cato.....and yet will use the NRA site to come to wrong conclusions...and again...I am a life member of the NRA and I like "The Armed Citizen" because it collects these stories in one location....but it isn't scientific.......neither is Cato, and they admit that........but I don't know why you choose one right wing site over another......

Because the Cato institute is not honest. They are extremely biased. Why is it you throw out the armed citizen findings?

 

[Brain357]

The Cato book based on their paper is interesting reading....they have a lot of defensive gun use stories and some interesting insights into the debate.....

How often was a criminal shot and killed in the stories they reviewed?

 

[Brain357]

Cato points out the problem with their observations and this would also include the NRA "The Armed citizen"....

There is a selection bias problem with the method of gathering news stories. Many defensive gun uses never make the news. Sometimes that is because the person us- ing a gun in self-defense saw no need to call the police—he or she scared off the bad guy. In some cases, the victim might not want to explain to the police that he has a gun, perhaps because he is a felon, or perhaps because he lives in a jurisdiction with very restrictive gun control laws. Sometimes the police do get called, but the officers do not find the circumstances sufficiently impor- tant to issue a press release. After all, “Man Scares away Burglar, No Shots Fired” is not particularly newsworthy, unless you live in a very small town.

In spite of the selection bias problem, there is one enormous advantage to this model of gathering data: it provides a rich set of information about motives, circum- stances, victims, and criminals. It also pro- vides a sufficiently large database (almost 5,000 incidents), randomly selected, so that some conclusions about the nature of armed self-defense in America can be drawn. Best of all, whatever the deficiencies of news reporting, the model is not completely de- pendent on the honesty or accuracy of the respondent—unlike some of the questions raised with respect to defensive gun use sur- veys.

In some cases, the victim might not want to explain to the police that he has a gun, perhaps because he is a felon,

 

[2aguy]

I've shown you a study of 500 defenses and 30% of the time the criminal is shot and killed...

What 500 defenses....and if you look at the research there are more kills than show up in the FBI data base....remember....the FBI data is not perfect...

Here is a more detailed look at defensive shooting incidents from 2003 to 2011....same idea as the NRA site, but more samples over a longer period of time....

From the book, or White Paper from CATO...."Tough Targets"

"The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports also significantly overstate murders and understate defensive gun uses. If the police investigat a homicide and ask the district attorney to charge someone with murder or manslaughter, that is reported as a murder to the Uniform Crime Reports program. But district attorney's will often investigate a case in the weeks afterward, find evidence that the killing was justifiable or excusable homicide, and drop the case entirely.

Further, some of the charges, are found to be justifiable or excusable homocide by judges and juries during a trial. this is very often the case in spousal abuse situations where a woman defends herself or her children from an estranged husband.9 A killing initially charged as a murder or negligent homicide that is later reclassified as a justifiable or excusable homicide, will not be moved in the Uniform Crime Reports data from the homicide column to the justifiable homicide column."

---------------------------
They then go on to explain how this can distort numbers by siting an article from Time magazine that looked at deaths in one day and then went back to check on the cases a year later....the 14 non law enforcement justifiable homicides went up to 28 because a year later the 14 other gun crimes were found to be justifiable homicides....and at least 43 other murder cases had not gone to trial....


And they say because of this.......

"clearly, the FBI justifiable homicide data is not particularly meaningful for understanding defensive gun uses that result in death-and is useless for understanding the vastly larger number of defensive gun uses that do not result in death."

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

The Data Set

At one time, it was widely believed that a fairly large percentage of defensive gun uses
might be criminals defending themselves from other criminals: marijuana growers protecting their crops, gang members de- fending themselves from other gang mem- bers, a falling out between members of a criminal enterprise. That was only specula- tion. For a long time, there was not much in the way of actual data.

Since the survey data has severe limita- tions with respect to defensive gun uses, collecting accounts of self-defense as they are reported in news outlets may be a better method of assessing the frequency and na- ture of self-defense with firearms. The data set supporting this paper is derived from a collection of news stories published between October 2003 and November 2011.12

There is a selection bias problem with the method of gathering news stories. Many defensive gun uses never make the news. Sometimes that is because the person us- ing a gun in self-defense saw no need to call the police—he or she scared off the bad guy. In some cases, the victim might not want to explain to the police that he has a gun, perhaps because he is a felon, or perhaps because he lives in a jurisdiction with very restrictive gun control laws. Sometimes the police do get called, but the officers do not find the circumstances sufficiently impor- tant to issue a press release. After all, “Man Scares away Burglar, No Shots Fired” is not particularly newsworthy, unless you live in a very small town.

In spite of the selection bias problem, there is one enormous advantage to this model of gathering data: it provides a rich set of information about motives, circum- stances, victims, and criminals. It also pro- vides a sufficiently large database (almost 5,000 incidents), randomly selected, so that some conclusions about the nature of armed self-defense in America can be drawn. Best of all, whatever the deficiencies of news reporting, the model is not completely de- pendent on the honesty or accuracy of the respondent—unlike some of the questions raised with respect to defensive gun use sur- veys.

As to wether they included criminals using guns defensively........

In a few instances, we have includ- ed cases where the initial news reports were clearly of legitimate defensive gun uses, but where law enforcement or a prosecutor chose to charge a gun owner.
Those are relatively rare; when there was any doubt as to whether a use of a gun might be criminal, it was not included in our list of news accounts until such time as there was confirmation that the defensive gun use was deemed lawful. In only a handful of cases did later investiga- tion turn an initial defensive gun use into a criminalcharge.Themostcommonscenario is that law enforcement officers chose not to prosecute based on the evidence at the scene and testimony of witnesses, but referred the case to a grand jury for review.

The very right wing pro gun Cato institute? Sorry but I would believe nothing they say.

I still find it funny that you don't like Cato.....and yet will use the NRA site to come to wrong conclusions...and again...I am a life member of the NRA and I like "The Armed Citizen" because it collects these stories in one location....but it isn't scientific.......neither is Cato, and they admit that........but I don't know why you choose one right wing site over another......

Because the Cato institute is not honest. They are extremely biased. Why is it you throw out the armed citizen findings?

Brain...it isn't scientific.....they just look at what the NRA could find and post....without too much effort of looking...Cato looked more by the way.....and it isn't "findings" but observations of the events.......