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.
You should have looked up Yaks....they are domesticated animals in the himalaya's but there is a small group of endangered yaks.....so...wrong again...
How do we constantly end up in these esoteric debates.
Here is the bottom line.
Guns can be dangerous if not handled with care and respect. Just like millions of other every items, from drain cleaner to swimming pools.
Guns save lives, there is no doubt about it, whether its 1.6 million or 800,000, it's a lot.
Guns can be misused, criminals misuse them, suicidal folks misuse them, careless people misuse them.
The real question to be debated is, do the pros outweigh the cons.
Let's just apply some logic.
You can't stop suicidal people from killing themselves by removing guns. There are just too many other methods. Anyone disagree?
That leaves us with 800,000 defensive gun uses (lowest reasonable estimate) vs 11,000 homicides.
It sucks that there is criminal use of firearms, and it sucks that some folks are reckless with their firearms...but that is no reason to penalize the 100,000,000 gun owners and the countless future gun owners who want nothing more than to be responsible and have the means to defend themselves and their loved ones.
The NCVS is the only one that would likely exclude thug on thug defenses.
So 2.5 then? You really believe there have been 75 million defenses in the last 30 years? You can't be serious. Anyone with a tiny amount of common sense can see that isn't right. But then again with only 230 or so criminals shot and killed in defense each year it's also obvious. More gun owners accidently shoot and kill themselves then shoot and kill criminals in defense? Wow you live in fantasy land.
Brain....the NCVS is not a defensive gun use study......it has no bearing on the actual research.....you use it because it is the only number you can find that is that low.....
And again...Kleck is the most accurate but he isn't the only researcher.....and his number isn't even the highest.....and yet you go after him alone......the L.A. times study, an anti gun paper...is even higher........
I use it because it's the most possible number. For all the reasons already given 2.5 million is a joke.
so...actual researchers using proven research methods, spending years to gain the knowledge of how to conduct these studies, spending thousands of dollars to do it, hiring staff, and other researchers....16 different groups of researchers over 40 years looking specifically at the use of guns in self defense....
but your number that you made up sounds more plausible...
Really?
Yes your researchers are so great their results go from 700k to 3.5 million. Boy they are so accurate.
but they actually did research...all 16 separate studies...they didn't just imagine a number they liked because it looked pretty.....
You should have looked up Yaks....they are domesticated animals in the himalaya's but there is a small group of endangered yaks.....so...wrong again...
Domesticated, but rare. that was the point. there aren't that many of them. Certainly not where you'd encounter one.
Just like DGU's. You would think if we had 1.5 million EVERY YEAR, someone would know someone who had one.
Brain....the NCVS is not a defensive gun use study......it has no bearing on the actual research.....you use it because it is the only number you can find that is that low.....
And again...Kleck is the most accurate but he isn't the only researcher.....and his number isn't even the highest.....and yet you go after him alone......the L.A. times study, an anti gun paper...is even higher........
I use it because it's the most possible number. For all the reasons already given 2.5 million is a joke.
so...actual researchers using proven research methods, spending years to gain the knowledge of how to conduct these studies, spending thousands of dollars to do it, hiring staff, and other researchers....16 different groups of researchers over 40 years looking specifically at the use of guns in self defense....
but your number that you made up sounds more plausible...
Really?
Yes your researchers are so great their results go from 700k to 3.5 million. Boy they are so accurate.
but they actually did research...all 16 separate studies...they didn't just imagine a number they liked because it looked pretty.....
I'm pretty well researched on the subject. It is clear to me the NCVS is the most accurate. And they did a survey same as kleck. Just not loaded with false positives and other errors.
How good was their research? 700k to 3.5 million? There are a lot of inaccuracies in there.
How do we constantly end up in these esoteric debates.
Here is the bottom line.
Guns can be dangerous if not handled with care and respect. Just like millions of other every items, from drain cleaner to swimming pools.
Guns save lives, there is no doubt about it, whether its 1.6 million or 800,000, it's a lot.
Guns can be misused, criminals misuse them, suicidal folks misuse them, careless people misuse them.
The real question to be debated is, do the pros outweigh the cons.
Let's just apply some logic.
You can't stop suicidal people from killing themselves by removing guns. There are just too many other methods. Anyone disagree?
That leaves us with 800,000 defensive gun uses (lowest reasonable estimate) vs 11,000 homicides.
It sucks that there is criminal use of firearms, and it sucks that some folks are reckless with their firearms...but that is no reason to penalize the 100,000,000 gun owners and the countless future gun owners who want nothing more than to be responsible and have the means to defend themselves and their loved ones.
This MAY have some validity, if and only if we can determine who is a criminal and who isn't. If a gun owner sells a gun to a neighbor, and the neighbor then shoots his wife - which is the criminal?
Brain....the NCVS is not a defensive gun use study......it has no bearing on the actual research.....you use it because it is the only number you can find that is that low.....
And again...Kleck is the most accurate but he isn't the only researcher.....and his number isn't even the highest.....and yet you go after him alone......the L.A. times study, an anti gun paper...is even higher........
I use it because it's the most possible number. For all the reasons already given 2.5 million is a joke.
so...actual researchers using proven research methods, spending years to gain the knowledge of how to conduct these studies, spending thousands of dollars to do it, hiring staff, and other researchers....16 different groups of researchers over 40 years looking specifically at the use of guns in self defense....
but your number that you made up sounds more plausible...
Really?
Yes your researchers are so great their results go from 700k to 3.5 million. Boy they are so accurate.
but they actually did research...all 16 separate studies...they didn't just imagine a number they liked because it looked pretty.....
I'm pretty well researched on the subject. It is clear to me the NCVS is the most accurate. And they did a survey same as kleck. Just not loaded with false positives and other errors.
How good was their research? 700k to 3.5 million? There are a lot of inaccuracies in there.
It is clear to me the NCVS is the most accurate.
This conclusion was based entirely on a single survey, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which did not even directly ask respondents about defensive gun use.
I use it because it's the most possible number. For all the reasons already given 2.5 million is a joke.
so...actual researchers using proven research methods, spending years to gain the knowledge of how to conduct these studies, spending thousands of dollars to do it, hiring staff, and other researchers....16 different groups of researchers over 40 years looking specifically at the use of guns in self defense....
but your number that you made up sounds more plausible...
Really?
Yes your researchers are so great their results go from 700k to 3.5 million. Boy they are so accurate.
but they actually did research...all 16 separate studies...they didn't just imagine a number they liked because it looked pretty.....
I'm pretty well researched on the subject. It is clear to me the NCVS is the most accurate. And they did a survey same as kleck. Just not loaded with false positives and other errors.
How good was their research? 700k to 3.5 million? There are a lot of inaccuracies in there.
What part of the fact that the NCVS didn't study gun use is getting past you brain....?
I use it because it's the most possible number. For all the reasons already given 2.5 million is a joke.
so...actual researchers using proven research methods, spending years to gain the knowledge of how to conduct these studies, spending thousands of dollars to do it, hiring staff, and other researchers....16 different groups of researchers over 40 years looking specifically at the use of guns in self defense....
but your number that you made up sounds more plausible...
Really?
Yes your researchers are so great their results go from 700k to 3.5 million. Boy they are so accurate.
but they actually did research...all 16 separate studies...they didn't just imagine a number they liked because it looked pretty.....
I'm pretty well researched on the subject. It is clear to me the NCVS is the most accurate. And they did a survey same as kleck. Just not loaded with false positives and other errors.
How good was their research? 700k to 3.5 million? There are a lot of inaccuracies in there.
It is clear to me the NCVS is the most accurate.
How is the NCVS survey the most accurate....when it doesn't even directly ask people if they used a gun.......where as the actual gun studies specifically ask this question and it is the whole reason the studies were done....
From the refutation of the critics, hemenway, kellerman and smith by Kleck.....
This conclusion was based entirely on a single survey, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which did not even directly ask respondents about defensive gun use.
How do we constantly end up in these esoteric debates.
Here is the bottom line.
Guns can be dangerous if not handled with care and respect. Just like millions of other every items, from drain cleaner to swimming pools.
Guns save lives, there is no doubt about it, whether its 1.6 million or 800,000, it's a lot.
Guns can be misused, criminals misuse them, suicidal folks misuse them, careless people misuse them.
The real question to be debated is, do the pros outweigh the cons.
Let's just apply some logic.
You can't stop suicidal people from killing themselves by removing guns. There are just too many other methods. Anyone disagree?
That leaves us with 800,000 defensive gun uses (lowest reasonable estimate) vs 11,000 homicides.
It sucks that there is criminal use of firearms, and it sucks that some folks are reckless with their firearms...but that is no reason to penalize the 100,000,000 gun owners and the countless future gun owners who want nothing more than to be responsible and have the means to defend themselves and their loved ones.
How do we constantly end up in these esoteric debates.
Here is the bottom line.
Guns can be dangerous if not handled with care and respect. Just like millions of other every items, from drain cleaner to swimming pools.
Guns save lives, there is no doubt about it, whether its 1.6 million or 800,000, it's a lot.
Guns can be misused, criminals misuse them, suicidal folks misuse them, careless people misuse them.
The real question to be debated is, do the pros outweigh the cons.
Let's just apply some logic.
You can't stop suicidal people from killing themselves by removing guns. There are just too many other methods. Anyone disagree?
That leaves us with 800,000 defensive gun uses (lowest reasonable estimate) vs 11,000 homicides.
It sucks that there is criminal use of firearms, and it sucks that some folks are reckless with their firearms...but that is no reason to penalize the 100,000,000 gun owners and the countless future gun owners who want nothing more than to be responsible and have the means to defend themselves and their loved ones.
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.
Due to screening questions in the NCVS survey, only a minority of the NCVS sample were asked a DGU question.
How do we constantly end up in these esoteric debates.
Here is the bottom line.
Guns can be dangerous if not handled with care and respect. Just like millions of other every items, from drain cleaner to swimming pools.
Guns save lives, there is no doubt about it, whether its 1.6 million or 800,000, it's a lot.
Guns can be misused, criminals misuse them, suicidal folks misuse them, careless people misuse them.
The real question to be debated is, do the pros outweigh the cons.
Let's just apply some logic.
You can't stop suicidal people from killing themselves by removing guns. There are just too many other methods. Anyone disagree?
That leaves us with 800,000 defensive gun uses (lowest reasonable estimate) vs 11,000 homicides.
It sucks that there is criminal use of firearms, and it sucks that some folks are reckless with their firearms...but that is no reason to penalize the 100,000,000 gun owners and the countless future gun owners who want nothing more than to be responsible and have the means to defend themselves and their loved ones.
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.....
How do we constantly end up in these esoteric debates.
Here is the bottom line.
Guns can be dangerous if not handled with care and respect. Just like millions of other every items, from drain cleaner to swimming pools.
Guns save lives, there is no doubt about it, whether its 1.6 million or 800,000, it's a lot.
Guns can be misused, criminals misuse them, suicidal folks misuse them, careless people misuse them.
The real question to be debated is, do the pros outweigh the cons.
Let's just apply some logic.
You can't stop suicidal people from killing themselves by removing guns. There are just too many other methods. Anyone disagree?
That leaves us with 800,000 defensive gun uses (lowest reasonable estimate) vs 11,000 homicides.
It sucks that there is criminal use of firearms, and it sucks that some folks are reckless with their firearms...but that is no reason to penalize the 100,000,000 gun owners and the countless future gun owners who want nothing more than to be responsible and have the means to defend themselves and their loved ones.
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.
Then figure like 80% of those are thug on thug defenses.
How do we constantly end up in these esoteric debates.
Here is the bottom line.
Guns can be dangerous if not handled with care and respect. Just like millions of other every items, from drain cleaner to swimming pools.
Guns save lives, there is no doubt about it, whether its 1.6 million or 800,000, it's a lot.
Guns can be misused, criminals misuse them, suicidal folks misuse them, careless people misuse them.
The real question to be debated is, do the pros outweigh the cons.
Let's just apply some logic.
You can't stop suicidal people from killing themselves by removing guns. There are just too many other methods. Anyone disagree?
That leaves us with 800,000 defensive gun uses (lowest reasonable estimate) vs 11,000 homicides.
It sucks that there is criminal use of firearms, and it sucks that some folks are reckless with their firearms...but that is no reason to penalize the 100,000,000 gun owners and the countless future gun owners who want nothing more than to be responsible and have the means to defend themselves and their loved ones.
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.
How do we constantly end up in these esoteric debates.
Here is the bottom line.
Guns can be dangerous if not handled with care and respect. Just like millions of other every items, from drain cleaner to swimming pools.
Guns save lives, there is no doubt about it, whether its 1.6 million or 800,000, it's a lot.
Guns can be misused, criminals misuse them, suicidal folks misuse them, careless people misuse them.
The real question to be debated is, do the pros outweigh the cons.
Let's just apply some logic.
You can't stop suicidal people from killing themselves by removing guns. There are just too many other methods. Anyone disagree?
That leaves us with 800,000 defensive gun uses (lowest reasonable estimate) vs 11,000 homicides.
It sucks that there is criminal use of firearms, and it sucks that some folks are reckless with their firearms...but that is no reason to penalize the 100,000,000 gun owners and the countless future gun owners who want nothing more than to be responsible and have the means to defend themselves and their loved ones.
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.
Then figure like 80% of those are thug on thug defenses.
None of the surveys get answers from criminals on using guns...why? Because, with the NCVS, they would have to admit...face to face with a badge carrying government official, that they committed a felony by using a gun....and on the other phone surveys they would have to admit to an anonymous stranger who has their phone number and would have their address, that again, they used a gun and committed a felony.....for a survey question....
Tell me how that makes any sense at all......?
You are wrong on all counts brain......
You claim the National Crime Victimization Survey is more accurate...when it isn't even a gun study, they don't actually ask each respondent if they used a gun for self defense and only some of their respondents answer the questions that lead to them admitting they used a gun......
then you say that criminals...with every incentive to not...not admit they used a gun and committed a felony would admit to a badge carrying government official that they used a gun and committed more than one felony, and over the phone surveys admit again to multiple felonies to an anonymous stranger who has their phone number and address.....
How do we constantly end up in these esoteric debates.
Here is the bottom line.
Guns can be dangerous if not handled with care and respect. Just like millions of other every items, from drain cleaner to swimming pools.
Guns save lives, there is no doubt about it, whether its 1.6 million or 800,000, it's a lot.
Guns can be misused, criminals misuse them, suicidal folks misuse them, careless people misuse them.
The real question to be debated is, do the pros outweigh the cons.
Let's just apply some logic.
You can't stop suicidal people from killing themselves by removing guns. There are just too many other methods. Anyone disagree?
That leaves us with 800,000 defensive gun uses (lowest reasonable estimate) vs 11,000 homicides.
It sucks that there is criminal use of firearms, and it sucks that some folks are reckless with their firearms...but that is no reason to penalize the 100,000,000 gun owners and the countless future gun owners who want nothing more than to be responsible and have the means to defend themselves and their loved ones.
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......
How do we constantly end up in these esoteric debates.
Here is the bottom line.
Guns can be dangerous if not handled with care and respect. Just like millions of other every items, from drain cleaner to swimming pools.
Guns save lives, there is no doubt about it, whether its 1.6 million or 800,000, it's a lot.
Guns can be misused, criminals misuse them, suicidal folks misuse them, careless people misuse them.
The real question to be debated is, do the pros outweigh the cons.
Let's just apply some logic.
You can't stop suicidal people from killing themselves by removing guns. There are just too many other methods. Anyone disagree?
That leaves us with 800,000 defensive gun uses (lowest reasonable estimate) vs 11,000 homicides.
It sucks that there is criminal use of firearms, and it sucks that some folks are reckless with their firearms...but that is no reason to penalize the 100,000,000 gun owners and the countless future gun owners who want nothing more than to be responsible and have the means to defend themselves and their loved ones.
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.
Then figure like 80% of those are thug on thug defenses.
None of the surveys get answers from criminals on using guns...why? Because, with the NCVS, they would have to admit...face to face with a badge carrying government official, that they committed a felony by using a gun....and on the other phone surveys they would have to admit to an anonymous stranger who has their phone number and would have their address, that again, they used a gun and committed a felony.....for a survey question....
Tell me how that makes any sense at all......?
You are wrong on all counts brain......
You claim the National Crime Victimization Survey is more accurate...when it isn't even a gun study, they don't actually ask each respondent if they used a gun for self defense and only some of their respondents answer the questions that lead to them admitting they used a gun......
then you say that criminals...with every incentive to not...not admit they used a gun and committed a felony would admit to a badge carrying government official that they used a gun and committed more than one felony, and over the phone surveys admit again to multiple felonies to an anonymous stranger who has their phone number and address.....
The NCVS survey is the only one that wouldn't have lots of thug on thug defenses.
How do we constantly end up in these esoteric debates.
Here is the bottom line.
Guns can be dangerous if not handled with care and respect. Just like millions of other every items, from drain cleaner to swimming pools.
Guns save lives, there is no doubt about it, whether its 1.6 million or 800,000, it's a lot.
Guns can be misused, criminals misuse them, suicidal folks misuse them, careless people misuse them.
The real question to be debated is, do the pros outweigh the cons.
Let's just apply some logic.
You can't stop suicidal people from killing themselves by removing guns. There are just too many other methods. Anyone disagree?
That leaves us with 800,000 defensive gun uses (lowest reasonable estimate) vs 11,000 homicides.
It sucks that there is criminal use of firearms, and it sucks that some folks are reckless with their firearms...but that is no reason to penalize the 100,000,000 gun owners and the countless future gun owners who want nothing more than to be responsible and have the means to defend themselves and their loved ones.
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....
How do we constantly end up in these esoteric debates.
Here is the bottom line.
Guns can be dangerous if not handled with care and respect. Just like millions of other every items, from drain cleaner to swimming pools.
Guns save lives, there is no doubt about it, whether its 1.6 million or 800,000, it's a lot.
Guns can be misused, criminals misuse them, suicidal folks misuse them, careless people misuse them.
The real question to be debated is, do the pros outweigh the cons.
Let's just apply some logic.
You can't stop suicidal people from killing themselves by removing guns. There are just too many other methods. Anyone disagree?
That leaves us with 800,000 defensive gun uses (lowest reasonable estimate) vs 11,000 homicides.
It sucks that there is criminal use of firearms, and it sucks that some folks are reckless with their firearms...but that is no reason to penalize the 100,000,000 gun owners and the countless future gun owners who want nothing more than to be responsible and have the means to defend themselves and their loved ones.
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.
Then figure like 80% of those are thug on thug defenses.
None of the surveys get answers from criminals on using guns...why? Because, with the NCVS, they would have to admit...face to face with a badge carrying government official, that they committed a felony by using a gun....and on the other phone surveys they would have to admit to an anonymous stranger who has their phone number and would have their address, that again, they used a gun and committed a felony.....for a survey question....
Tell me how that makes any sense at all......?
You are wrong on all counts brain......
You claim the National Crime Victimization Survey is more accurate...when it isn't even a gun study, they don't actually ask each respondent if they used a gun for self defense and only some of their respondents answer the questions that lead to them admitting they used a gun......
then you say that criminals...with every incentive to not...not admit they used a gun and committed a felony would admit to a badge carrying government official that they used a gun and committed more than one felony, and over the phone surveys admit again to multiple felonies to an anonymous stranger who has their phone number and address.....
The NCVS survey is the only one that wouldn't have lots of thug on thug defenses.
Brain...the NCVS is not a gun study....
Neither type of study will have criminals admitting they committed multiple felonies when they used a gun...which for a criminal, just possessing a gun is a crime...a felony........
