CDZ We should charge 431.50 dollars in order to vote, people will then take it seriously...

[2aguy]

It is your right to own a gun...not your right to make a slave out of the man who makes it...that is what the democrat party did before the 1860s. There is an individual right to bear arms outside of militia service....has been since the beginning of the country.

there are 1,500,000 times a year Americans use guns to stop violent criminal attack according to bill clinton's Department of Justice research back in the 1990s.....and that was when there were only 200 million guns in the country and about 4 million concealed carry permit holders...now we have 357 million guns in private hands and 14.5 million Americans actually carrying guns for self defense...so those defensive uses more than likely increased......

And as more Americans bought and carry guns....our gun murder rate went down 49%.......

I'd like to see that statistic about guns used to stop violent crime, if you have a link. I wonder how it was determined.

Here you go......this is a list of all the studies that have looked at defensive gun use over the years........40 years just about.......the name of the researchers or group, the year of the research and the number of defensive gun uses they found....also, wether they included police or military defensive gun uses...

The obama CDC research in 2013 is also shown, as well as the Department of Justice research number during bill clinton's administration....you can see that it is quite a lot of research, done over time by both government and private researchers........



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

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

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

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

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

This has been debunked over and over. Stop reposting it. It's tantamount to spam.

These are actual studies....they have not been debunked over and over again....you simply saying you don't like the numbers all of these independent studies have found is not debunking them..........they were researched by trained research professionals in multiple fields of study......so you have no clue what you are saying....

Unfortunately, many of the links within the page do not work.

It seems like it could be a difficult statistic to accurately determine. That it happens at least in the hundreds of thousands seems like a good guess based on the little I looked at it, though.

You can get Kleck's pretty easily....and here is the Department of Justice Study.......

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs.
Same study But the original work .........

https://everytownresearch.org/documents/2015/09/guns-america-1996-police-foundation-survey.pdf

Page 62-63

n the third column of Table 6.2, we apply the Kleck and Gertz (1995) criteria for "genuine" DGUs (type A), leaving us with just 19 respondents. They represent 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known Kleck and Gertz estimate of 2.5 million, shown in the last

While ours is smaller, it is staistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. to the when we include the multiple DGUs victim. defensive reported by half our 19 respondents, our estimate increases to 4.7 milli

While ours is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference petrator; in most cases (69 percent), the is due to sampling error. Note that when we include the multiple DGUs reported by half our 19 respondents, our estimate increases to 4.7 million DGUs.
----

As shown in Table 6.6, the defender fired his or her gun in 27 percent of these incidents (combined "fire warning shots" and "fire at perpetrator" percentages, though some respondents reported firing both warning shots and airning at the perpetrator). Forty percent of these were "warning shots," and about a third were aimed at the perpetrator but missed. The perpetrator was wounded by the crime victim in eight percent of all DGUs. In nine percent of DGUs the victim captured and held the perpetrator at gunpoint until the police could arrive.

 

[2aguy]

In order to simply exercise the right to bear arms.....own and carry a gun, in New York....it costs 431.50....minimum...without taking into the extra costs involved with hiring a lawyer to go through the process....

So if it is wrong to charge people to exercise the Right to Vote...it is wrong to use the tactic of a Poll Tax to attack their right to Bear Arms.....

You have to pay 431.50 to own a shotgun on top of the purchase price?

Yes....over 350 dollars for the permit and 90 some odd dollars for the finger print.....and again....that doesn't include all the fees and taxes, including hiring a lawyer to get a concealed carry permit...

Are you part of a militia and do you support state rights?

No...I am not in a militia......and I support our Constitutional federal system of checks and balances between states and the Federal government.

Then you technically have no right to bear arms and you are paying for the privilege.

the Right to bear arms is not dependent on a militia......has never been part of our legal history........read Heller where they go through all of this...

 

[GaryDog]

Again, you continually ignore the absurdly broad definition of "defensive use". I could probably enlist a study that shows a "defensive use" of fists that dwarfs that of guns, and supports the thesis that "guns are not necessary at all for self-defense" using a facsimile of your idiotic logic.

 

[2aguy]

I'd like to see that statistic about guns used to stop violent crime, if you have a link. I wonder how it was determined.

Here you go......this is a list of all the studies that have looked at defensive gun use over the years........40 years just about.......the name of the researchers or group, the year of the research and the number of defensive gun uses they found....also, wether they included police or military defensive gun uses...

The obama CDC research in 2013 is also shown, as well as the Department of Justice research number during bill clinton's administration....you can see that it is quite a lot of research, done over time by both government and private researchers........



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

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

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

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

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

This has been debunked over and over. Stop reposting it. It's tantamount to spam.

These are actual studies....they have not been debunked over and over again....you simply saying you don't like the numbers all of these independent studies have found is not debunking them..........they were researched by trained research professionals in multiple fields of study......so you have no clue what you are saying....

Unfortunately, many of the links within the page do not work.

It seems like it could be a difficult statistic to accurately determine. That it happens at least in the hundreds of thousands seems like a good guess based on the little I looked at it, though.

It is difficult to determine, and the studies take the easy way out and just assume that anyone holding a gun at all has used it "defensively." It's a bogus, pro-gun study. Tainted as studies get.

Nope.......you have to actually do the reading.......and it isn't just one study.....those are all studies that were done by actual researchers......

 

[GaryDog]

You have to pay 431.50 to own a shotgun on top of the purchase price?

Yes....over 350 dollars for the permit and 90 some odd dollars for the finger print.....and again....that doesn't include all the fees and taxes, including hiring a lawyer to get a concealed carry permit...

Are you part of a militia and do you support state rights?

No...I am not in a militia......and I support our Constitutional federal system of checks and balances between states and the Federal government.

Then you technically have no right to bear arms and you are paying for the privilege.

the Right to bear arms is not dependent on a militia......has never been part of our legal history........read Heller where they go through all of this...

Up until 2008, it was. Heller was an aberraiton, in which even Scalia disagrees with your Charles Bronson fantasies of gun use/ownership in America.

 

[2aguy]

Again, you continually ignore the absurdly broad definition of "defensive use". I could probably enlist a study that shows a "defensive use" of fists that dwarfs that of guns, and supports the thesis that "guns are not necessary at all for self-defense" using a facsimile of your idiotic logic.

Wrong....you can call a fish a bicycle but that doesn't make it true......the number of studies show you are wrong......especially by the CDC and the Department of Justice....

 

[GaryDog]

Can you explain what you're referring to?

In order to simply exercise the right to bear arms.....own and carry a gun, in New York....it costs 431.50....minimum...without taking into the extra costs involved with hiring a lawyer to go through the process....

So if it is wrong to charge people to exercise the Right to Vote...it is wrong to use the tactic of a Poll Tax to attack their right to Bear Arms.....

Can you start a newspaper for free?

Rights aren't absolute, particularly when they affect public safety. This is 3rd-grade level shit.

You have a Right to Free Speech, but you cannot force someone to work for you....democrats did that and Republicans had to make them stop.

No one said Rights are absolute....if you are a felon, you lose your right to Bear Arms.....but law abiding people should not have to pay to exercise a Right...that becomes a priveledge, not a Right...

Felons in many states CAN buy guns, provided the conviction has been expunged. LOL @ "Law abiding."

Yeah....so......they have to go through a process, and can't own a gun until they do....that is a limit....also, the dangerously mentally ill can't own or carry guns either....

Then I assume you're barred from using one?

 

[GaryDog]

Again, you continually ignore the absurdly broad definition of "defensive use". I could probably enlist a study that shows a "defensive use" of fists that dwarfs that of guns, and supports the thesis that "guns are not necessary at all for self-defense" using a facsimile of your idiotic logic.

Wrong....you can call a fish a bicycle but that doesn't make it true......the number of studies show you are wrong......especially by the CDC and the Department of Justice....

The CDC didn't do a gun study. They studied violence in general, guns as a subset, and it was only a study in ....DELAWARE.

Please stop lying. It's not helpful to your point.

 

[2aguy]

Yes....over 350 dollars for the permit and 90 some odd dollars for the finger print.....and again....that doesn't include all the fees and taxes, including hiring a lawyer to get a concealed carry permit...

Are you part of a militia and do you support state rights?

No...I am not in a militia......and I support our Constitutional federal system of checks and balances between states and the Federal government.

Then you technically have no right to bear arms and you are paying for the privilege.

the Right to bear arms is not dependent on a militia......has never been part of our legal history........read Heller where they go through all of this...

Up until 2008, it was. Heller was an aberraiton, in which even Scalia disagrees with your Charles Bronson fantasies of gun use/ownership in America.

No.....in the Heller decision they show the case law and legal precedent .........you are wrong...the Right has always been an individual Right and it is an Individual Right as written in the Bill of Rights.....you guys are not telling the truth...

 

[Asclepias]

You have to pay 431.50 to own a shotgun on top of the purchase price?

Yes....over 350 dollars for the permit and 90 some odd dollars for the finger print.....and again....that doesn't include all the fees and taxes, including hiring a lawyer to get a concealed carry permit...

Are you part of a militia and do you support state rights?

No...I am not in a militia......and I support our Constitutional federal system of checks and balances between states and the Federal government.

Then you technically have no right to bear arms and you are paying for the privilege.

the Right to bear arms is not dependent on a militia......has never been part of our legal history........read Heller where they go through all of this...

I dont need to read Heller when I can just read the 2nd amendment. Basically the right of the people is contingent on the militia. Anyone understanding basic sentence structure can understand this.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you are not a member of the militia/national guard you actually dont have a right to own a firearm.

 

[2aguy]

Again, you continually ignore the absurdly broad definition of "defensive use". I could probably enlist a study that shows a "defensive use" of fists that dwarfs that of guns, and supports the thesis that "guns are not necessary at all for self-defense" using a facsimile of your idiotic logic.

Wrong....you can call a fish a bicycle but that doesn't make it true......the number of studies show you are wrong......especially by the CDC and the Department of Justice....

The CDC didn't do a gun study. They studied violence in general, guns as a subset, and it was only a study in ....DELAWARE.

Please stop lying. It's not helpful to your point.

Wrong...they studied all of the gun research up to 2013...including defensive gun use....and you can see the number they found for defensive gun use.......

The Deleware study isn't even listed in my link.....please...pay attention......obama commissioned the CDC in 2013....gave them 10 million dollars to do it....and they studied all the research on guns and gun self defense up to 2013......

The Deleware Study was done in 2015.......the Town asked the CDC for help to find the reason for all the gun violence.....the answer.....poor opportunies and at risk boys..........I have posted about that study in other places as well....

Completely separate research...

 

[2aguy]

Yes....over 350 dollars for the permit and 90 some odd dollars for the finger print.....and again....that doesn't include all the fees and taxes, including hiring a lawyer to get a concealed carry permit...

Are you part of a militia and do you support state rights?

No...I am not in a militia......and I support our Constitutional federal system of checks and balances between states and the Federal government.

Then you technically have no right to bear arms and you are paying for the privilege.

the Right to bear arms is not dependent on a militia......has never been part of our legal history........read Heller where they go through all of this...

I dont need to read Heller when I can just read the 2nd amendment. Basically the right of the people is contingent on the militia.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And you would be wrong........the first 4 lines quoted show you are completely wrong......and it doesn't get better the more you read in Heller......you are wrong...the individual Right is well documented as legal Precedent long before the Constitution was even created....


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.


2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

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

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

-----------

1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause.

The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”).

All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

----------

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
----------


In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

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

In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry ing a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”


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

That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31–53 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103–106. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”

-------

As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.”



-----------

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

------------
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training
----
That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.

----

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution
-------------
Besides ignoring the historical reality that the Second Amendment was not intended to lay down a “novel principl[e]” but rather codified a right “inherited from our English ancestors,”

----------

B Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the B Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the


---------

1. Post-ratification Commentary Three important founding-era legal scholars interpreted Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 33 Opinion of the Court the Second Amendment in published writings. All three understood it to protect an individual right unconnected with militia service.

--------




c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

 

[2aguy]

Yes....over 350 dollars for the permit and 90 some odd dollars for the finger print.....and again....that doesn't include all the fees and taxes, including hiring a lawyer to get a concealed carry permit...

Are you part of a militia and do you support state rights?

No...I am not in a militia......and I support our Constitutional federal system of checks and balances between states and the Federal government.

Then you technically have no right to bear arms and you are paying for the privilege.

the Right to bear arms is not dependent on a militia......has never been part of our legal history........read Heller where they go through all of this...

I dont need to read Heller when I can just read the 2nd amendment. Basically the right of the people is contingent on the militia. Anyone understanding basic sentence structure can understand this.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you are not a member of the militia/national guard you actually dont have a right to own a firearm.

And of course the word "people" is used in the constitution to specify a right of an individual citizen, not a group Right......it doesn't say the Right of the militia to keep and bear arms, it states the "People" specifically......of course you need to read Heller......it points out how wrong you are....

 

[Montrovant]

I'd like to see that statistic about guns used to stop violent crime, if you have a link. I wonder how it was determined.

Here you go......this is a list of all the studies that have looked at defensive gun use over the years........40 years just about.......the name of the researchers or group, the year of the research and the number of defensive gun uses they found....also, wether they included police or military defensive gun uses...

The obama CDC research in 2013 is also shown, as well as the Department of Justice research number during bill clinton's administration....you can see that it is quite a lot of research, done over time by both government and private researchers........



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

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

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

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

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

This has been debunked over and over. Stop reposting it. It's tantamount to spam.

These are actual studies....they have not been debunked over and over again....you simply saying you don't like the numbers all of these independent studies have found is not debunking them..........they were researched by trained research professionals in multiple fields of study......so you have no clue what you are saying....

Unfortunately, many of the links within the page do not work.

It seems like it could be a difficult statistic to accurately determine. That it happens at least in the hundreds of thousands seems like a good guess based on the little I looked at it, though.

It is difficult to determine, and the studies take the easy way out and just assume that anyone holding a gun at all has used it "defensively." It's a bogus, pro-gun study. Tainted as studies get.

There's definitely big gaps in methodology. What determines a DGU, is it based strictly on survey answers or something like FBI crime statistics, if it's a survey, what are the questions and how are they asked, what is the sample size, etc. etc.

Even the lowest estimates I've seen so far (I've been looking at it a bit, I'm curious) are at about 50,000 a year. The highest was, I think, 4.7 million a year. Somewhere in between, even if it's toward the lower end, seems reasonable to me.

 

[Asclepias]

Are you part of a militia and do you support state rights?

No...I am not in a militia......and I support our Constitutional federal system of checks and balances between states and the Federal government.

Then you technically have no right to bear arms and you are paying for the privilege.

the Right to bear arms is not dependent on a militia......has never been part of our legal history........read Heller where they go through all of this...

I dont need to read Heller when I can just read the 2nd amendment. Basically the right of the people is contingent on the militia.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And you would be wrong........the first 4 lines quoted show you are completely wrong......and it doesn't get better the more you read in Heller......you are wrong...the individual Right is well documented as legal Precedent long before the Constitution was even created....

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.


2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

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

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

-----------

1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause.

The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”).

All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

----------

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
----------


In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

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

In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry ing a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”


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

That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31–53 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103–106. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”

-------

As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.”



-----------

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

------------
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training
----
That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.

----

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution
-------------
Besides ignoring the historical reality that the Second Amendment was not intended to lay down a “novel principl[e]” but rather codified a right “inherited from our English ancestors,”

----------

B Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the B Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the


---------

1. Post-ratification Commentary Three important founding-era legal scholars interpreted Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 33 Opinion of the Court the Second Amendment in published writings. All three understood it to protect an individual right unconnected with militia service.

--------




c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

I'm right youre wrong.

If the right to bear arms was extended to the average wanna be john wayne, the amendment would have been worded differently. For starters it would have been a period instead of a comma separating the two ideas and the first part of the sentence would have been constructed as a complete thought. As I said before any 8th grade student can see that the first sentence cannot stand on its own.

2ndly the phrase "the people" meaning a group is used instead of the word "person" or "persons".

3rdly. The adjective "well regulated" used to describe the militia points at a trained force not some random joe blow that wants to play soldier boy.

 

[Montrovant]

Yes....over 350 dollars for the permit and 90 some odd dollars for the finger print.....and again....that doesn't include all the fees and taxes, including hiring a lawyer to get a concealed carry permit...

Are you part of a militia and do you support state rights?

No...I am not in a militia......and I support our Constitutional federal system of checks and balances between states and the Federal government.

Then you technically have no right to bear arms and you are paying for the privilege.

the Right to bear arms is not dependent on a militia......has never been part of our legal history........read Heller where they go through all of this...

I dont need to read Heller when I can just read the 2nd amendment. Basically the right of the people is contingent on the militia. Anyone understanding basic sentence structure can understand this.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you are not a member of the militia/national guard you actually dont have a right to own a firearm.

The USSC disagrees.

 

[Asclepias]

Are you part of a militia and do you support state rights?

No...I am not in a militia......and I support our Constitutional federal system of checks and balances between states and the Federal government.

Then you technically have no right to bear arms and you are paying for the privilege.

the Right to bear arms is not dependent on a militia......has never been part of our legal history........read Heller where they go through all of this...

I dont need to read Heller when I can just read the 2nd amendment. Basically the right of the people is contingent on the militia. Anyone understanding basic sentence structure can understand this.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you are not a member of the militia/national guard you actually dont have a right to own a firearm.

And of course the word "people" is used in the constitution to specify a right of an individual citizen, not a group Right......it doesn't say the Right of the militia to keep and bear arms, it states the "People" specifically......of course you need to read Heller......it points out how wrong you are....

"the people" has always been used to describe a group. The word you wish was in there was "person" or "individual"

 

[Asclepias]

Are you part of a militia and do you support state rights?

No...I am not in a militia......and I support our Constitutional federal system of checks and balances between states and the Federal government.

Then you technically have no right to bear arms and you are paying for the privilege.

the Right to bear arms is not dependent on a militia......has never been part of our legal history........read Heller where they go through all of this...

I dont need to read Heller when I can just read the 2nd amendment. Basically the right of the people is contingent on the militia. Anyone understanding basic sentence structure can understand this.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you are not a member of the militia/national guard you actually dont have a right to own a firearm.

The USSC disagrees.

That has no bearing on reading comprehension unless your claim is that the writers of the 2nd were illiterate.

 

[CowboyTed]

People should have to pay $1000 every time they buy a gun

Make them more responsible

RW,

Said this from the start, make them buy insurance (mandatory).... Case closed, the market will decide how much of a risk you are...

You are liable for the gun and gun actions until you report it stolen...

 

[2aguy]

Here you go......this is a list of all the studies that have looked at defensive gun use over the years........40 years just about.......the name of the researchers or group, the year of the research and the number of defensive gun uses they found....also, wether they included police or military defensive gun uses...

The obama CDC research in 2013 is also shown, as well as the Department of Justice research number during bill clinton's administration....you can see that it is quite a lot of research, done over time by both government and private researchers........



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

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

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

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

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

This has been debunked over and over. Stop reposting it. It's tantamount to spam.

These are actual studies....they have not been debunked over and over again....you simply saying you don't like the numbers all of these independent studies have found is not debunking them..........they were researched by trained research professionals in multiple fields of study......so you have no clue what you are saying....

Unfortunately, many of the links within the page do not work.

It seems like it could be a difficult statistic to accurately determine. That it happens at least in the hundreds of thousands seems like a good guess based on the little I looked at it, though.

It is difficult to determine, and the studies take the easy way out and just assume that anyone holding a gun at all has used it "defensively." It's a bogus, pro-gun study. Tainted as studies get.

There's definitely big gaps in methodology. What determines a DGU, is it based strictly on survey answers or something like FBI crime statistics, if it's a survey, what are the questions and how are they asked, what is the sample size, etc. etc.

Even the lowest estimates I've seen so far (I've been looking at it a bit, I'm curious) are at about 50,000 a year. The highest was, I think, 4.7 million a year. Somewhere in between, even if it's toward the lower end, seems reasonable to me.

The Kleck study gives the methodology......as does the clinton Department of Justice study.....

Where did you get the 50,000 a year?