Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I agree with much of what you are saying, but you have at least one major flaw. You are comparing an estimate of DGUs to homicides. Well every DGU is not saving a life so you really need to compare gun crimes. The most recent number I find for nonfatal gun crimes is 2011 with 467,300 victimizations:
Bureau of Justice Statistics BJS - Firearm Violence 1993-2011
So if you use the 108,000 for the NCVS survey that I think is the most accurate it is 108,000 defenses vs 467,300 plus 8500 homicides committed. Then throw in the 500 accidental deaths and 17,000 accidental shooting injuries.
Now even if you use say the 700k it is like a 20 year old number so crime is down like 30%. So even the previous 700k is now about 490,000. Then figure like 80% of those are thug on thug defenses.
Brain...again....the NCVS does not ask people if they used a gun for self defense....they ask a general question if the guy says he was a victim....did you do anything to stop the crime.....and then, only then can the defensive gun response come in....it is not even close to being an accurate study for defensive gun use....
They don't actually ask if the person used a gun for self defense.........do you get that....obviously not....
From wikipedia on the NCVS....
Defensive gun use - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Due to screening questions in the NCVS survey, only a minority of the NCVS sample were asked a DGU question.
The NCVS is not a gun study......not even close....it doesn't count for research into defensive gun uses.....
That is hardly a good source. That is probably taken from one of your pro gun sources.
Try this source....the Daily Kos.....not a right wing pro gun site.....
Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study
The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;
2) the study does not track every type of crime;
3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;
4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;
5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;
6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.
So brain....a liberal anti gun source shows you are wrong...again.....
This is not a gun study....and trying to make it into one because you like the low number just doesn't cut it......
From your link:
Interviewees in the study are asked about incidents of rape, sexual assault, assault, robbery, theft, household burglary, and motor vehicle theft that occurred to them personally in the previous six months. Respondents who report an incidence of crime are then asked questions about self-defense:
“Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?”Responses from victims who answer they took action during the criminal attack are coded into one of 16 categories, including “attacked offender with gun; fired gun”, and “threatened offender with gun”. The interviewer continues to ask “anything else” until the crime victim reports no further actions taken. The survey follows these questions with an additional probe: “Did you do anything (else) with the idea of protecting yourself or your property while the incident was going on?'
Looks like it would pretty clearly get DGUs to me....
Even the libs at daily kos say the NCVS isn't accurate....
Brain...they don't ask all respondents if they used a gun...Kleck does.....they don't get to the gun question by asking the question...did you use a gun.......
This is why the NCVS is wrong....
Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study
The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;
2) the study does not track every type of crime;
3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;
4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;
5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;
6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.
Brain...again....the NCVS does not ask people if they used a gun for self defense....they ask a general question if the guy says he was a victim....did you do anything to stop the crime.....and then, only then can the defensive gun response come in....it is not even close to being an accurate study for defensive gun use....
They don't actually ask if the person used a gun for self defense.........do you get that....obviously not....
From wikipedia on the NCVS....
Defensive gun use - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The NCVS is not a gun study......not even close....it doesn't count for research into defensive gun uses.....
That is hardly a good source. That is probably taken from one of your pro gun sources.
Try this source....the Daily Kos.....not a right wing pro gun site.....
Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study
The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;
2) the study does not track every type of crime;
3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;
4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;
5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;
6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.
So brain....a liberal anti gun source shows you are wrong...again.....
This is not a gun study....and trying to make it into one because you like the low number just doesn't cut it......
From your link:
Interviewees in the study are asked about incidents of rape, sexual assault, assault, robbery, theft, household burglary, and motor vehicle theft that occurred to them personally in the previous six months. Respondents who report an incidence of crime are then asked questions about self-defense:
“Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?”Responses from victims who answer they took action during the criminal attack are coded into one of 16 categories, including “attacked offender with gun; fired gun”, and “threatened offender with gun”. The interviewer continues to ask “anything else” until the crime victim reports no further actions taken. The survey follows these questions with an additional probe: “Did you do anything (else) with the idea of protecting yourself or your property while the incident was going on?'
Looks like it would pretty clearly get DGUs to me....
Even the libs at daily kos say the NCVS isn't accurate....
Brain...they don't ask all respondents if they used a gun...Kleck does.....they don't get to the gun question by asking the question...did you use a gun.......
That is one of the reasons kleck gets so many fals positives. Look to believe klecks numbers there have been 75 million defenses the last 30 years alone. You know that can't possibly be true. So clearly his numbers are greatly exaggerated.
This is why the NCVS is wrong....
Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study
The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;
2) the study does not track every type of crime;
3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;
4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;
5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;
6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.
You already posted that, it hasn't changed. I posted what your link says the questions are. It would clearly get any DGUs.
That is hardly a good source. That is probably taken from one of your pro gun sources.
Try this source....the Daily Kos.....not a right wing pro gun site.....
Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study
The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;
2) the study does not track every type of crime;
3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;
4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;
5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;
6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.
So brain....a liberal anti gun source shows you are wrong...again.....
This is not a gun study....and trying to make it into one because you like the low number just doesn't cut it......
From your link:
Interviewees in the study are asked about incidents of rape, sexual assault, assault, robbery, theft, household burglary, and motor vehicle theft that occurred to them personally in the previous six months. Respondents who report an incidence of crime are then asked questions about self-defense:
“Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?”Responses from victims who answer they took action during the criminal attack are coded into one of 16 categories, including “attacked offender with gun; fired gun”, and “threatened offender with gun”. The interviewer continues to ask “anything else” until the crime victim reports no further actions taken. The survey follows these questions with an additional probe: “Did you do anything (else) with the idea of protecting yourself or your property while the incident was going on?'
Looks like it would pretty clearly get DGUs to me....
Even the libs at daily kos say the NCVS isn't accurate....
Brain...they don't ask all respondents if they used a gun...Kleck does.....they don't get to the gun question by asking the question...did you use a gun.......
That is one of the reasons kleck gets so many fals positives. Look to believe klecks numbers there have been 75 million defenses the last 30 years alone. You know that can't possibly be true. So clearly his numbers are greatly exaggerated.
Kleck and the other 15 studies say you are wrong...and they actually did the research......they didn't just make up the number because they liked it.....and Kleck was an anti gunner when he started out with no reason to pad his numbers....
This is why the NCVS is wrong....
Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study
The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;
2) the study does not track every type of crime;
3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;
4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;
5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;
6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.
You already posted that, it hasn't changed. I posted what your link says the questions are. It would clearly get any DGUs.
Brain....I am done with you for tonight.......
Are you for real? You don't know.....? See.....the man who sold the gun is free of guilt if he honestly sold the gun.....the criminal is the one who used it illegally.....you guys....I'll tell you.......
Brain...again....the NCVS does not ask people if they used a gun for self defense....they ask a general question if the guy says he was a victim....did you do anything to stop the crime.....and then, only then can the defensive gun response come in....it is not even close to being an accurate study for defensive gun use....
Brain...again....the NCVS does not ask people if they used a gun for self defense....they ask a general question if the guy says he was a victim....did you do anything to stop the crime.....and then, only then can the defensive gun response come in....it is not even close to being an accurate study for defensive gun use....
Yeah, that sounds like the right way to do it. As opposed to Kleck who insisted on counting just times when having a gun made you feel better.
More to the point, the NCVS questions 65,000 people a year, every year. Kleck questioned 5000 people, one time, most of them in Jesus-Land.
Are you for real? You don't know.....? See.....the man who sold the gun is free of guilt if he honestly sold the gun.....the criminal is the one who used it illegally.....you guys....I'll tell you.......
Not at all. You see, you should KNOW who you are selling a gun to.
Like when guy who dressed like The Joker went into the gun store and asked for a AR-15 and a 100 round drum of ammo, most REASONABLE people would conclude he was up to no good.
It seems every time we have one of these nuts who shoots up a theatre or a school or a shopping center, everyone who knows them says, "Yeah, I always knew that guy was crazy".
Except the person who sold him the gun, apparently.
Brain...again....the NCVS does not ask people if they used a gun for self defense....they ask a general question if the guy says he was a victim....did you do anything to stop the crime.....and then, only then can the defensive gun response come in....it is not even close to being an accurate study for defensive gun use....
Yeah, that sounds like the right way to do it. As opposed to Kleck who insisted on counting just times when having a gun made you feel better.
More to the point, the NCVS questions 65,000 people a year, every year. Kleck questioned 5000 people, one time, most of them in Jesus-Land.
Brain...again....the NCVS does not ask people if they used a gun for self defense....they ask a general question if the guy says he was a victim....did you do anything to stop the crime.....and then, only then can the defensive gun response come in....it is not even close to being an accurate study for defensive gun use....
Yeah, that sounds like the right way to do it. As opposed to Kleck who insisted on counting just times when having a gun made you feel better.
More to the point, the NCVS questions 65,000 people a year, every year. Kleck questioned 5000 people, one time, most of them in Jesus-Land.
You do realize that the NCVS is not a gun study....and so it can't be counted as...you know....a study on guns....right?
Of course the 16 studies on the defensive use of guns done over 40 years use actual research methods, you and brain seem to use animal entrails as the way to determine the number...I think I will go with the actual researchers on this one..........
Let's check this out.....as Lott points out they are trying the "The Science is settled so STFU" line of debating.......
CPRC at Fox News Gun control advocates taking a page out of global warming advocates handbook - Crime Prevention Research Center
So let’s look at the details. He polled authors who had published in the fields of “public health, public policy, sociology, or criminology.” Most notably, half of the authors picked were within Hemenway’s own field of public health and another third were sociologists/criminologists, followed by public policy and a few economists. It dramatically over weighted those in public health. It didn’t matter whether the publications even contained any empirical work or were related to the survey questions.
Authors were asked if they agreed with the statement: "In the United States, guns are used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime.” Hemenway reports that 73 percent disagreed. However, many respondents may have believed that there still exists a net benefit from gun ownership — just not enough to say that guns are used defensively “far more often.”
It is abundantly clear that it matters who you ask and how the questions are asked. A survey released in February by the Crime Prevention Research Center conducted by Professor Gary Mauser at Simon Fraser University in Canada found that 88 percent of North American economics researchers agreed with the statement that, in the US, guns were more frequently used for self-defense than for crime.
Other questions were posed by Hemenway in ways to hide information. For instance, respondents were asked to evaluate: "The change in state-level concealed carry laws in the United States over the past few decades from more restrictive to more permissive has reduced crime rates.” 62% of respondents claimed that there wasn’t a benefit from concealed handgun laws and the Boston Globe ran this headline: “Most gun experts believe guns do more harm than good.”
In contrast, Professor Mauser asked researchers whether they thought permitted concealed handgun laws either reduced murders, had no effect, or increased murders. Among North American economists, 81 percent stated the laws reduced murders, 19 percent that they had no effect. Absolutely no one said that the laws increased crime. If economists outside of North America were included, the results changed slightly, with 74 percent stating the laws reduced murders, 20 percent that they had no effect, and 6 percent that they caused an increase.
Let's check this out.....as Lott points out they are trying the "The Science is settled so STFU" line of debating.......
CPRC at Fox News Gun control advocates taking a page out of global warming advocates handbook - Crime Prevention Research Center
So let’s look at the details. He polled authors who had published in the fields of “public health, public policy, sociology, or criminology.” Most notably, half of the authors picked were within Hemenway’s own field of public health and another third were sociologists/criminologists, followed by public policy and a few economists. It dramatically over weighted those in public health. It didn’t matter whether the publications even contained any empirical work or were related to the survey questions.
Authors were asked if they agreed with the statement: "In the United States, guns are used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime.” Hemenway reports that 73 percent disagreed. However, many respondents may have believed that there still exists a net benefit from gun ownership — just not enough to say that guns are used defensively “far more often.”
It is abundantly clear that it matters who you ask and how the questions are asked. A survey released in February by the Crime Prevention Research Center conducted by Professor Gary Mauser at Simon Fraser University in Canada found that 88 percent of North American economics researchers agreed with the statement that, in the US, guns were more frequently used for self-defense than for crime.
Other questions were posed by Hemenway in ways to hide information. For instance, respondents were asked to evaluate: "The change in state-level concealed carry laws in the United States over the past few decades from more restrictive to more permissive has reduced crime rates.” 62% of respondents claimed that there wasn’t a benefit from concealed handgun laws and the Boston Globe ran this headline: “Most gun experts believe guns do more harm than good.”
In contrast, Professor Mauser asked researchers whether they thought permitted concealed handgun laws either reduced murders, had no effect, or increased murders. Among North American economists, 81 percent stated the laws reduced murders, 19 percent that they had no effect. Absolutely no one said that the laws increased crime. If economists outside of North America were included, the results changed slightly, with 74 percent stating the laws reduced murders, 20 percent that they had no effect, and 6 percent that they caused an increase.
o, for example, one survey asked whether having a gun in the home increased the risk of suicide. An overwhelming share of the 150 people who responded, 84 per cent, said yes.
And of course they lead off with the suicide b.s. in the article......
http://m.guelphmercury.com/opinion-story/5577074-scientists-are-not-evenly-divided-about-guns
Economists have done a lot of work on crime. Unlike the vast majority of work in public health, it is usually much more rigorous with more detailed statistical evidence dealing with issues of causality. Economists are also much more open to the notion of deterrence than the vast majority of authors surveyed by Hemenway. I myself was chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission. But Hemenway steers away from economics journals. In addition, looking at publications from only 2011 through 2013 also picks up a recent surge in public health studies and skews the sample towards those types of authors.
If you want to know what researchers think about gun control, simply read their research. Yet, Hemenway is right on one point: on questions such as concealed carry laws, the debate is as good as over. The vast majority of studies show that these laws reduce crime. And there are no refereed journal articles by economists or criminologists claiming that concealed handgun permits increase murder, rape or robbery.
