Another home invasion caught on video...good thing she didn't have a gun...right?

[sealybobo]

Yes....it is far better to trust that the guys breaking into your home and brutalizing will not go that one step further and rape or murder you...since they have already shown they don't care about the law.....so it is better to be completely defenseless and hope for the best....that you might just get lucky and not get brutally beaten, raped, stabbed and murdered.......rather than defending yourself with a gun. Right?

More Intense Surveillance Footage Of Home Invasion Except This Victim Is Missing A Firearm To Fight Back With Concealed Nation

She would have never got to the gun. She let her friend in. Do you go get your gun everytime a friend comes over with friends you dont know? She was caught off guard.

I'm all for guns but in this case all that would have happened is they would have found and stolen her gun.

 

[2aguy]

And if you have a gun you are the one most likely to be saved by it if you are attacked by a criminal.....and since 2 million people a year use guns to stop or prevent violent criminal attack and save lives......that is a lot of people saved from the fate of those poor people......

The vast majority of gun studies say it is less than 2 million. Ncvs says 108k. Also most defenses are by people involved in criminal activity.

and no, most are not involved in criminal activity and you know that.....and again the NCVS is not a gun study and can't even get the numbers right on the things it does study like rape and sexual assault where it is off by a factor of 10.......

Most are obviously involved in criminal activity. Armed thugs live in high crime areas. They defend their stuff too. High crime areas are where the majority of defenses are. Also Kleck himself has said most are involved in criminal activity.

Also Kleck himself has said most are involved in criminal activity

And there you go being dishonest again.....this is what Kleck said this year......

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine


In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces.

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.

So, you know Kleck did not say they were criminals involved in criminal business, but law abiding citizens who didn't necessarily have a permit to carry a gun for self defense in the 1990s, when the study was conducted....by implying he said they were actual criminals, drug dealers, violent rapists, robbers, murderers, you show that you don't want to tell the truth but to sway the debate against gun ownership......by lying about one of the best studies on self defense with a gun, in particular, and gun ownership in general.....





Read more: Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine

First he has said in the past most defenses are at home(which is what most say including Lott). Seems he flip flops depending on what he is defending. I'm still waiting for you to explain that. And nowhere in your quote is he saying defenders aren't people who are involved in criminal activity. He is stating that the defense itself is not criminal. So yesterdays robber is not actually committing a crime other than unlawful possession of a gun during the defense. Nothing states the defender is not otherwise a criminal.

Nothing states the defender is not otherwise a criminal

Except the very nature of the studies....where you think a criminal...... gets an anonymous phone call that asks if they used a gun in self defense.....of course if he answers yes...he has just admitted to comitting a felony to a stranger on the phone....a stranger who knows where he lives, and who is in the home.......since the caller could very well be a member of law enforcment.....

So you think it is in the criminals best interest to admit to an anonymous caller that they committed multiple felonies under the guise of a phone survey on self defense.........that they have an incentive to admit to multiple felonies that will land them in jail for years if they are caught....

Right? keep dreaming your anti gun dreams.......

 

[2aguy]

Yes....it is far better to trust that the guys breaking into your home and brutalizing will not go that one step further and rape or murder you...since they have already shown they don't care about the law.....so it is better to be completely defenseless and hope for the best....that you might just get lucky and not get brutally beaten, raped, stabbed and murdered.......rather than defending yourself with a gun. Right?

More Intense Surveillance Footage Of Home Invasion Except This Victim Is Missing A Firearm To Fight Back With Concealed Nation

She would have never got to the gun. She let her friend in. Do you go get your gun everytime a friend comes over with friends you dont know? She was caught off guard.

I'm all for guns but in this case all that would have happened is they would have found and stolen her gun.

Not necessarily.....and would you rather be legally banned from having a gun than having a gun in this attack....or the attack in the Wichita case I posted about?

And many people carry their guns.....so it would be likely if she had a gun for self defense she might very well have had it on her........

 

[Brain357]

The vast majority of gun studies say it is less than 2 million. Ncvs says 108k. Also most defenses are by people involved in criminal activity.

and no, most are not involved in criminal activity and you know that.....and again the NCVS is not a gun study and can't even get the numbers right on the things it does study like rape and sexual assault where it is off by a factor of 10.......

Most are obviously involved in criminal activity. Armed thugs live in high crime areas. They defend their stuff too. High crime areas are where the majority of defenses are. Also Kleck himself has said most are involved in criminal activity.

Also Kleck himself has said most are involved in criminal activity

And there you go being dishonest again.....this is what Kleck said this year......

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine


In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces.

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.

So, you know Kleck did not say they were criminals involved in criminal business, but law abiding citizens who didn't necessarily have a permit to carry a gun for self defense in the 1990s, when the study was conducted....by implying he said they were actual criminals, drug dealers, violent rapists, robbers, murderers, you show that you don't want to tell the truth but to sway the debate against gun ownership......by lying about one of the best studies on self defense with a gun, in particular, and gun ownership in general.....





Read more: Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine

First he has said in the past most defenses are at home(which is what most say including Lott). Seems he flip flops depending on what he is defending. I'm still waiting for you to explain that. And nowhere in your quote is he saying defenders aren't people who are involved in criminal activity. He is stating that the defense itself is not criminal. So yesterdays robber is not actually committing a crime other than unlawful possession of a gun during the defense. Nothing states the defender is not otherwise a criminal.

I get it....Kleck's study is the best one on self defense so you anti-gun nuts have to lie about what he found...and considering he is a left winger , who began his research into the topic as an anti gunner himself...that really pisses you off....he is a heretic...and a successful heretic at getting to the truth about guns and self defense......so he must be destroyed....that is how you anti gunners operate...the truth and reality doesn't match your beliefs.....then you destroy the people who find that truth and show reality.........

Ok. So I'll assume you can't disagree with anything I said. His survey isn't reality. He got 50 positives and extrapolated to 2.5 million. That's 2.5 million fantasy defenses. None of them happened or were confirmed in any way. Nobody in their right might would believe there have been 75 million valid defenses the last 30 years. You'd have to be crazy to think that given how rare they are in the news and with people you know. That said it doesn't mean you ban guns, but I like the discussion to be honest.

 

[Brain357]

The vast majority of gun studies say it is less than 2 million. Ncvs says 108k. Also most defenses are by people involved in criminal activity.

and no, most are not involved in criminal activity and you know that.....and again the NCVS is not a gun study and can't even get the numbers right on the things it does study like rape and sexual assault where it is off by a factor of 10.......

Most are obviously involved in criminal activity. Armed thugs live in high crime areas. They defend their stuff too. High crime areas are where the majority of defenses are. Also Kleck himself has said most are involved in criminal activity.

Also Kleck himself has said most are involved in criminal activity

And there you go being dishonest again.....this is what Kleck said this year......

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine


In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces.

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.

So, you know Kleck did not say they were criminals involved in criminal business, but law abiding citizens who didn't necessarily have a permit to carry a gun for self defense in the 1990s, when the study was conducted....by implying he said they were actual criminals, drug dealers, violent rapists, robbers, murderers, you show that you don't want to tell the truth but to sway the debate against gun ownership......by lying about one of the best studies on self defense with a gun, in particular, and gun ownership in general.....





Read more: Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine

First he has said in the past most defenses are at home(which is what most say including Lott). Seems he flip flops depending on what he is defending. I'm still waiting for you to explain that. And nowhere in your quote is he saying defenders aren't people who are involved in criminal activity. He is stating that the defense itself is not criminal. So yesterdays robber is not actually committing a crime other than unlawful possession of a gun during the defense. Nothing states the defender is not otherwise a criminal.

Nothing states the defender is not otherwise a criminal

Except the very nature of the studies....where you think a criminal...... gets an anonymous phone call that asks if they used a gun in self defense.....of course if he answers yes...he has just admitted to comitting a felony to a stranger on the phone....a stranger who knows where he lives, and who is in the home.......since the caller could very well be a member of law enforcment.....

So you think it is in the criminals best interest to admit to an anonymous caller that they committed multiple felonies under the guise of a phone survey on self defense.........that they have an incentive to admit to multiple felonies that will land them in jail for years if they are caught....

Right? keep dreaming your anti gun dreams.......

Much of Klecks defense of his study is dependent on criminals responding. He is clear that most are committing unlawful possession of a gun! That is a crime. They are admitting to committing a crime. Sorry but you can't now say criminals won't respond when so much of his defense is dependent on it.

Also they would only be admitting a felony if they are in fact a felon. Many criminals have not yet been caught and are not felons.

 

[Brain357]

Yes....it is far better to trust that the guys breaking into your home and brutalizing will not go that one step further and rape or murder you...since they have already shown they don't care about the law.....so it is better to be completely defenseless and hope for the best....that you might just get lucky and not get brutally beaten, raped, stabbed and murdered.......rather than defending yourself with a gun. Right?

More Intense Surveillance Footage Of Home Invasion Except This Victim Is Missing A Firearm To Fight Back With Concealed Nation

She would have never got to the gun. She let her friend in. Do you go get your gun everytime a friend comes over with friends you dont know? She was caught off guard.

I'm all for guns but in this case all that would have happened is they would have found and stolen her gun.

Not necessarily.....and would you rather be legally banned from having a gun than having a gun in this attack....or the attack in the Wichita case I posted about?

And many people carry their guns.....so it would be likely if she had a gun for self defense she might very well have had it on her........

We really don't know. She might have gone for her gun and shot herself too. What we do know is that she didn't have a gun and was not killed.

 

[2aguy]

and no, most are not involved in criminal activity and you know that.....and again the NCVS is not a gun study and can't even get the numbers right on the things it does study like rape and sexual assault where it is off by a factor of 10.......

Most are obviously involved in criminal activity. Armed thugs live in high crime areas. They defend their stuff too. High crime areas are where the majority of defenses are. Also Kleck himself has said most are involved in criminal activity.

Also Kleck himself has said most are involved in criminal activity

And there you go being dishonest again.....this is what Kleck said this year......

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine


In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces.

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.

So, you know Kleck did not say they were criminals involved in criminal business, but law abiding citizens who didn't necessarily have a permit to carry a gun for self defense in the 1990s, when the study was conducted....by implying he said they were actual criminals, drug dealers, violent rapists, robbers, murderers, you show that you don't want to tell the truth but to sway the debate against gun ownership......by lying about one of the best studies on self defense with a gun, in particular, and gun ownership in general.....





Read more: Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine

First he has said in the past most defenses are at home(which is what most say including Lott). Seems he flip flops depending on what he is defending. I'm still waiting for you to explain that. And nowhere in your quote is he saying defenders aren't people who are involved in criminal activity. He is stating that the defense itself is not criminal. So yesterdays robber is not actually committing a crime other than unlawful possession of a gun during the defense. Nothing states the defender is not otherwise a criminal.

I get it....Kleck's study is the best one on self defense so you anti-gun nuts have to lie about what he found...and considering he is a left winger , who began his research into the topic as an anti gunner himself...that really pisses you off....he is a heretic...and a successful heretic at getting to the truth about guns and self defense......so he must be destroyed....that is how you anti gunners operate...the truth and reality doesn't match your beliefs.....then you destroy the people who find that truth and show reality.........

Ok. So I'll assume you can't disagree with anything I said. His survey isn't reality. He got 50 positives and extrapolated to 2.5 million. That's 2.5 million fantasy defenses. None of them happened or were confirmed in any way. Nobody in their right might would believe there have been 75 million valid defenses the last 30 years. You'd have to be crazy to think that given how rare they are in the news and with people you know. That said it doesn't mean you ban guns, but I like the discussion to be honest.

And of course since all the other gun self defense surveys also support a high number of defensive gun uses, none less than 760,000 and several topping out at 3 million, his conclusion using actual research is not out of the ordinary.....in fact his 2.5 million is one of at least 4 studies that puts the number that high and if you average the studies that do not include military or defense police shootings the number actually averages out to 2 million a year......

Actual criminologists and economists, conducting separate studies over 40 years of doing this research both public and private, many of whom, including Kleck were anti gun when they did the research have vetted this information.....so if you don't like it because it isn't a number you like then perhaps you should get experience doing research and then fund your own study...like they did.....

 

[2aguy]

and no, most are not involved in criminal activity and you know that.....and again the NCVS is not a gun study and can't even get the numbers right on the things it does study like rape and sexual assault where it is off by a factor of 10.......

Most are obviously involved in criminal activity. Armed thugs live in high crime areas. They defend their stuff too. High crime areas are where the majority of defenses are. Also Kleck himself has said most are involved in criminal activity.

Also Kleck himself has said most are involved in criminal activity

And there you go being dishonest again.....this is what Kleck said this year......

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine


In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces.

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.

So, you know Kleck did not say they were criminals involved in criminal business, but law abiding citizens who didn't necessarily have a permit to carry a gun for self defense in the 1990s, when the study was conducted....by implying he said they were actual criminals, drug dealers, violent rapists, robbers, murderers, you show that you don't want to tell the truth but to sway the debate against gun ownership......by lying about one of the best studies on self defense with a gun, in particular, and gun ownership in general.....





Read more: Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine

First he has said in the past most defenses are at home(which is what most say including Lott). Seems he flip flops depending on what he is defending. I'm still waiting for you to explain that. And nowhere in your quote is he saying defenders aren't people who are involved in criminal activity. He is stating that the defense itself is not criminal. So yesterdays robber is not actually committing a crime other than unlawful possession of a gun during the defense. Nothing states the defender is not otherwise a criminal.

Nothing states the defender is not otherwise a criminal

Except the very nature of the studies....where you think a criminal...... gets an anonymous phone call that asks if they used a gun in self defense.....of course if he answers yes...he has just admitted to comitting a felony to a stranger on the phone....a stranger who knows where he lives, and who is in the home.......since the caller could very well be a member of law enforcment.....

So you think it is in the criminals best interest to admit to an anonymous caller that they committed multiple felonies under the guise of a phone survey on self defense.........that they have an incentive to admit to multiple felonies that will land them in jail for years if they are caught....

Right? keep dreaming your anti gun dreams.......

Much of Klecks defense of his study is dependent on criminals responding. He is clear that most are committing unlawful possession of a gun! That is a crime. They are admitting to committing a crime. Sorry but you can't now say criminals won't respond when so much of his defense is dependent on it.

Also they would only be admitting a felony if they are in fact a felon. Many criminals have not yet been caught and are not felons.

No, most criminals have extensive criminal backgrounds going back to their teenage years.....

And wrong again on the unlawful possession point....this just shows that if anything his results come from an undercounting of defensive gun uses since savvy gun owners in the 90s....who knew they might be in legal trouble for carrying a gun without the petty paperwork would possibly be in trouble if caught would not include the gun in their response and not get counted....

So his 2.5 million number is closer to the truth than not.......and is supported by all the other research done by all the other researchers in the field.....

 

[2aguy]

Play time is over Brain, have a nice weekend....

 

[Brain357]

Most are obviously involved in criminal activity. Armed thugs live in high crime areas. They defend their stuff too. High crime areas are where the majority of defenses are. Also Kleck himself has said most are involved in criminal activity.

Also Kleck himself has said most are involved in criminal activity

And there you go being dishonest again.....this is what Kleck said this year......

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine


In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces.

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.

So, you know Kleck did not say they were criminals involved in criminal business, but law abiding citizens who didn't necessarily have a permit to carry a gun for self defense in the 1990s, when the study was conducted....by implying he said they were actual criminals, drug dealers, violent rapists, robbers, murderers, you show that you don't want to tell the truth but to sway the debate against gun ownership......by lying about one of the best studies on self defense with a gun, in particular, and gun ownership in general.....





Read more: Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine

First he has said in the past most defenses are at home(which is what most say including Lott). Seems he flip flops depending on what he is defending. I'm still waiting for you to explain that. And nowhere in your quote is he saying defenders aren't people who are involved in criminal activity. He is stating that the defense itself is not criminal. So yesterdays robber is not actually committing a crime other than unlawful possession of a gun during the defense. Nothing states the defender is not otherwise a criminal.

I get it....Kleck's study is the best one on self defense so you anti-gun nuts have to lie about what he found...and considering he is a left winger , who began his research into the topic as an anti gunner himself...that really pisses you off....he is a heretic...and a successful heretic at getting to the truth about guns and self defense......so he must be destroyed....that is how you anti gunners operate...the truth and reality doesn't match your beliefs.....then you destroy the people who find that truth and show reality.........

Ok. So I'll assume you can't disagree with anything I said. His survey isn't reality. He got 50 positives and extrapolated to 2.5 million. That's 2.5 million fantasy defenses. None of them happened or were confirmed in any way. Nobody in their right might would believe there have been 75 million valid defenses the last 30 years. You'd have to be crazy to think that given how rare they are in the news and with people you know. That said it doesn't mean you ban guns, but I like the discussion to be honest.

And of course since all the other gun self defense surveys also support a high number of defensive gun uses, none less than 760,000 and several topping out at 3 million, his conclusion using actual research is not out of the ordinary.....in fact his 2.5 million is one of at least 4 studies that puts the number that high and if you average the studies that do not include military or defense police shootings the number actually averages out to 2 million a year......

Actual criminologists and economists, conducting separate studies over 40 years of doing this research both public and private, many of whom, including Kleck were anti gun when they did the research have vetted this information.....so if you don't like it because it isn't a number you like then perhaps you should get experience doing research and then fund your own study...like they did.....

Yes and 11 studies put the number lower. And it's clear gun surveys are not accurate given the huge range of results they get. From 500k to 3.6 million. If they were accurate they would all arrive at a similar number. The NCVS study is far more accurate and surveys 90k homes. That estimate is 108K.

 

[PredFan]

The sheer number and lunacy of the lies that left wing gun grabbers tell themselves and others in order to maintain thier false narrative against guns and self defense is astounding.

 

[Brain357]

Most are obviously involved in criminal activity. Armed thugs live in high crime areas. They defend their stuff too. High crime areas are where the majority of defenses are. Also Kleck himself has said most are involved in criminal activity.

Also Kleck himself has said most are involved in criminal activity

And there you go being dishonest again.....this is what Kleck said this year......

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine


In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces.

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.

So, you know Kleck did not say they were criminals involved in criminal business, but law abiding citizens who didn't necessarily have a permit to carry a gun for self defense in the 1990s, when the study was conducted....by implying he said they were actual criminals, drug dealers, violent rapists, robbers, murderers, you show that you don't want to tell the truth but to sway the debate against gun ownership......by lying about one of the best studies on self defense with a gun, in particular, and gun ownership in general.....





Read more: Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine

First he has said in the past most defenses are at home(which is what most say including Lott). Seems he flip flops depending on what he is defending. I'm still waiting for you to explain that. And nowhere in your quote is he saying defenders aren't people who are involved in criminal activity. He is stating that the defense itself is not criminal. So yesterdays robber is not actually committing a crime other than unlawful possession of a gun during the defense. Nothing states the defender is not otherwise a criminal.

Nothing states the defender is not otherwise a criminal

Except the very nature of the studies....where you think a criminal...... gets an anonymous phone call that asks if they used a gun in self defense.....of course if he answers yes...he has just admitted to comitting a felony to a stranger on the phone....a stranger who knows where he lives, and who is in the home.......since the caller could very well be a member of law enforcment.....

So you think it is in the criminals best interest to admit to an anonymous caller that they committed multiple felonies under the guise of a phone survey on self defense.........that they have an incentive to admit to multiple felonies that will land them in jail for years if they are caught....

Right? keep dreaming your anti gun dreams.......

Much of Klecks defense of his study is dependent on criminals responding. He is clear that most are committing unlawful possession of a gun! That is a crime. They are admitting to committing a crime. Sorry but you can't now say criminals won't respond when so much of his defense is dependent on it.

Also they would only be admitting a felony if they are in fact a felon. Many criminals have not yet been caught and are not felons.

No, most criminals have extensive criminal backgrounds going back to their teenage years.....

And wrong again on the unlawful possession point....this just shows that if anything his results come from an undercounting of defensive gun uses since savvy gun owners in the 90s....who knew they might be in legal trouble for carrying a gun without the petty paperwork would possibly be in trouble if caught would not include the gun in their response and not get counted....

So his 2.5 million number is closer to the truth than not.......and is supported by all the other research done by all the other researchers in the field.....

Sorry but most of his defense is dependent on criminals responding. You have to throw out most of his defense for your claim to be true. I don't think you want to do that.

 

[2aguy]

And there you go being dishonest again.....this is what Kleck said this year......

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine


In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces.

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.

So, you know Kleck did not say they were criminals involved in criminal business, but law abiding citizens who didn't necessarily have a permit to carry a gun for self defense in the 1990s, when the study was conducted....by implying he said they were actual criminals, drug dealers, violent rapists, robbers, murderers, you show that you don't want to tell the truth but to sway the debate against gun ownership......by lying about one of the best studies on self defense with a gun, in particular, and gun ownership in general.....





Read more: Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine

First he has said in the past most defenses are at home(which is what most say including Lott). Seems he flip flops depending on what he is defending. I'm still waiting for you to explain that. And nowhere in your quote is he saying defenders aren't people who are involved in criminal activity. He is stating that the defense itself is not criminal. So yesterdays robber is not actually committing a crime other than unlawful possession of a gun during the defense. Nothing states the defender is not otherwise a criminal.

Nothing states the defender is not otherwise a criminal

Except the very nature of the studies....where you think a criminal...... gets an anonymous phone call that asks if they used a gun in self defense.....of course if he answers yes...he has just admitted to comitting a felony to a stranger on the phone....a stranger who knows where he lives, and who is in the home.......since the caller could very well be a member of law enforcment.....

So you think it is in the criminals best interest to admit to an anonymous caller that they committed multiple felonies under the guise of a phone survey on self defense.........that they have an incentive to admit to multiple felonies that will land them in jail for years if they are caught....

Right? keep dreaming your anti gun dreams.......

Much of Klecks defense of his study is dependent on criminals responding. He is clear that most are committing unlawful possession of a gun! That is a crime. They are admitting to committing a crime. Sorry but you can't now say criminals won't respond when so much of his defense is dependent on it.

Also they would only be admitting a felony if they are in fact a felon. Many criminals have not yet been caught and are not felons.

No, most criminals have extensive criminal backgrounds going back to their teenage years.....

And wrong again on the unlawful possession point....this just shows that if anything his results come from an undercounting of defensive gun uses since savvy gun owners in the 90s....who knew they might be in legal trouble for carrying a gun without the petty paperwork would possibly be in trouble if caught would not include the gun in their response and not get counted....

So his 2.5 million number is closer to the truth than not.......and is supported by all the other research done by all the other researchers in the field.....

Sorry but most of his defense is dependent on criminals responding. You have to throw out most of his defense for your claim to be true. I don't think you want to do that.

This is why you can't trust the gun grabbers ever....brain constantly says most gun defenses are by criminals, by which he means actual criminals who make their livings going about raping, robbing, beating, stabbing and murdering people...that is the impression he wants you to have about these gun studies in general and Kleck's studies in particular, in that way he can discredit them as not applying to the law abiding citizen using a gun to stop a violent crime...and if the law abiding citizen isn't stopping criminal attack with guns.....we don't need them so get rid of them.....

But what the studies in general do and the Kleck study in particular points out, is that.....

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine


In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces.

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.

And what is criminal possession of a gun in a public place...a law abiding citizen who is not a career crimnal carrying a gun for self defense without paperwork....and this was back in the 90s before every state allowed people to exercise their right to self defense....but they carried a gun anyway since criminals also ignore peoples constitutional rights and ignore the law about carrying guns as a criminal.....

So brain is dishonest because he is a gun grabber...but a smart one who doesn't come right out like the anti-gun nuts and start talking about gun owners shooting minorities or our penis sizes in relation to our guns....he just always focuses on the negative, and distorts the actual research to always make it negative when it is the opposite.....

 

[Andylusion]

Yes....it is far better to trust that the guys breaking into your home and brutalizing will not go that one step further and rape or murder you...since they have already shown they don't care about the law.....so it is better to be completely defenseless and hope for the best....that you might just get lucky and not get brutally beaten, raped, stabbed and murdered.......rather than defending yourself with a gun. Right?

More Intense Surveillance Footage Of Home Invasion Except This Victim Is Missing A Firearm To Fight Back With Concealed Nation

OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS — A woman let two men into her home along with a trusted friend, only to be betrayed by that friend and suffer a home invasion setup instead.

Pick better friends.

Well no duh..... scum doesn't usually have "Judas" tattoo'd to their forehead.

But Smith&Wesson will fix many trust issues.

 

[Brain357]

First he has said in the past most defenses are at home(which is what most say including Lott). Seems he flip flops depending on what he is defending. I'm still waiting for you to explain that. And nowhere in your quote is he saying defenders aren't people who are involved in criminal activity. He is stating that the defense itself is not criminal. So yesterdays robber is not actually committing a crime other than unlawful possession of a gun during the defense. Nothing states the defender is not otherwise a criminal.

Nothing states the defender is not otherwise a criminal

Except the very nature of the studies....where you think a criminal...... gets an anonymous phone call that asks if they used a gun in self defense.....of course if he answers yes...he has just admitted to comitting a felony to a stranger on the phone....a stranger who knows where he lives, and who is in the home.......since the caller could very well be a member of law enforcment.....

So you think it is in the criminals best interest to admit to an anonymous caller that they committed multiple felonies under the guise of a phone survey on self defense.........that they have an incentive to admit to multiple felonies that will land them in jail for years if they are caught....

Right? keep dreaming your anti gun dreams.......

Much of Klecks defense of his study is dependent on criminals responding. He is clear that most are committing unlawful possession of a gun! That is a crime. They are admitting to committing a crime. Sorry but you can't now say criminals won't respond when so much of his defense is dependent on it.

Also they would only be admitting a felony if they are in fact a felon. Many criminals have not yet been caught and are not felons.

No, most criminals have extensive criminal backgrounds going back to their teenage years.....

And wrong again on the unlawful possession point....this just shows that if anything his results come from an undercounting of defensive gun uses since savvy gun owners in the 90s....who knew they might be in legal trouble for carrying a gun without the petty paperwork would possibly be in trouble if caught would not include the gun in their response and not get counted....

So his 2.5 million number is closer to the truth than not.......and is supported by all the other research done by all the other researchers in the field.....

Sorry but most of his defense is dependent on criminals responding. You have to throw out most of his defense for your claim to be true. I don't think you want to do that.

This is why you can't trust the gun grabbers ever....brain constantly says most gun defenses are by criminals, by which he means actual criminals who make their livings going about raping, robbing, beating, stabbing and murdering people...that is the impression he wants you to have about these gun studies in general and Kleck's studies in particular, in that way he can discredit them as not applying to the law abiding citizen using a gun to stop a violent crime...and if the law abiding citizen isn't stopping criminal attack with guns.....we don't need them so get rid of them.....

But what the studies in general do and the Kleck study in particular points out, is that.....

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine


In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces.

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.

And what is criminal possession of a gun in a public place...a law abiding citizen who is not a career crimnal carrying a gun for self defense without paperwork....and this was back in the 90s before every state allowed people to exercise their right to self defense....but they carried a gun anyway since criminals also ignore peoples constitutional rights and ignore the law about carrying guns as a criminal.....

So brain is dishonest because he is a gun grabber...but a smart one who doesn't come right out like the anti-gun nuts and start talking about gun owners shooting minorities or our penis sizes in relation to our guns....he just always focuses on the negative, and distorts the actual research to always make it negative when it is the opposite.....

No, nothing dishonest. If you are breaking a law you are a criminal. Kleck is clear that most defenders are involved in unlawful behavior. If you think most defenders are not then please show me where any gun study makes that claim.

 

[Brain357]

First he has said in the past most defenses are at home(which is what most say including Lott). Seems he flip flops depending on what he is defending. I'm still waiting for you to explain that. And nowhere in your quote is he saying defenders aren't people who are involved in criminal activity. He is stating that the defense itself is not criminal. So yesterdays robber is not actually committing a crime other than unlawful possession of a gun during the defense. Nothing states the defender is not otherwise a criminal.

Nothing states the defender is not otherwise a criminal

Except the very nature of the studies....where you think a criminal...... gets an anonymous phone call that asks if they used a gun in self defense.....of course if he answers yes...he has just admitted to comitting a felony to a stranger on the phone....a stranger who knows where he lives, and who is in the home.......since the caller could very well be a member of law enforcment.....

So you think it is in the criminals best interest to admit to an anonymous caller that they committed multiple felonies under the guise of a phone survey on self defense.........that they have an incentive to admit to multiple felonies that will land them in jail for years if they are caught....

Right? keep dreaming your anti gun dreams.......

Much of Klecks defense of his study is dependent on criminals responding. He is clear that most are committing unlawful possession of a gun! That is a crime. They are admitting to committing a crime. Sorry but you can't now say criminals won't respond when so much of his defense is dependent on it.

Also they would only be admitting a felony if they are in fact a felon. Many criminals have not yet been caught and are not felons.

No, most criminals have extensive criminal backgrounds going back to their teenage years.....

And wrong again on the unlawful possession point....this just shows that if anything his results come from an undercounting of defensive gun uses since savvy gun owners in the 90s....who knew they might be in legal trouble for carrying a gun without the petty paperwork would possibly be in trouble if caught would not include the gun in their response and not get counted....

So his 2.5 million number is closer to the truth than not.......and is supported by all the other research done by all the other researchers in the field.....

Sorry but most of his defense is dependent on criminals responding. You have to throw out most of his defense for your claim to be true. I don't think you want to do that.

This is why you can't trust the gun grabbers ever....brain constantly says most gun defenses are by criminals, by which he means actual criminals who make their livings going about raping, robbing, beating, stabbing and murdering people...that is the impression he wants you to have about these gun studies in general and Kleck's studies in particular, in that way he can discredit them as not applying to the law abiding citizen using a gun to stop a violent crime...and if the law abiding citizen isn't stopping criminal attack with guns.....we don't need them so get rid of them.....

But what the studies in general do and the Kleck study in particular points out, is that.....

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine


In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces.

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.

And what is criminal possession of a gun in a public place...a law abiding citizen who is not a career crimnal carrying a gun for self defense without paperwork....and this was back in the 90s before every state allowed people to exercise their right to self defense....but they carried a gun anyway since criminals also ignore peoples constitutional rights and ignore the law about carrying guns as a criminal.....

So brain is dishonest because he is a gun grabber...but a smart one who doesn't come right out like the anti-gun nuts and start talking about gun owners shooting minorities or our penis sizes in relation to our guns....he just always focuses on the negative, and distorts the actual research to always make it negative when it is the opposite.....

Here is a good explanation:
The second factor, 'external validation' is following up on the natural instinct of "2.5 million DGUs each year? That can't be right, that's a huge number!" Indeed, that's 2 times higher than the total violent crime rate of ~1.2 million annually (including estimates of unreported crime).

How can that be? How can crime involving DGU be higher than the total crime rate? Not only that, if you assume crime affects non-DGU victims at roughly the same rate, that would imply significantly more than 2.5 million non-DGU victims.

Kleck's response is twofold, that the incidences he's measuring may not reflect typical crimes (e.g. trespassing or other non-violent crime or threat), and DGU incidences may be significantly under-reported because of illegal gun use, or other illegal activities. So, what the heck is he actually measuring?

I mean, when we're talking about trying to assess the positive social utility of DGU, scaring kids off your property by flashing a shotgun doesn't automatically go in the 'plus' category in my mind. Indeed, if you look at Table 3 in Kleck 95, you find that almost 50% of the DGU he measured involved no actual threat posed to the defender. WTF?

In fact, the primary theme that Kleck 97 uses to answer Hemenway's objections is that there is vast under-reporting of DGU because they are usually used illegally and/or in conjunction with illegal activity on the part of the defender.

Huh? I mean, maybe that's the missing piece that makes all the numbers start to make sense. The DGU measured by Kleck 95, that 2.5 million number that gets thrown around, is not lawful DGU. It's not homeowners lawfully protecting their property or lives, it's criminals using DGU to protect themselves during criminal activity. No other explanation is consistent with the much more precise estimates of crime stats of burglary, rape, robbery, and assault, and even then the 2.5 million number strains credibility.

But, maybe it would all make sense then, the fact that we don't see thousands of DGUs trumpeted by the NRA daily (2.5 million / 365 = 7000), the fact that many if not most of us personally don't know anyone successfully using a gun to protect themselves (for me, 40 years * 2.5 million/ year = 100 million DGUs during my life).

A closer look at DGU numbers

 

[sealybobo]

Yes....it is far better to trust that the guys breaking into your home and brutalizing will not go that one step further and rape or murder you...since they have already shown they don't care about the law.....so it is better to be completely defenseless and hope for the best....that you might just get lucky and not get brutally beaten, raped, stabbed and murdered.......rather than defending yourself with a gun. Right?

More Intense Surveillance Footage Of Home Invasion Except This Victim Is Missing A Firearm To Fight Back With Concealed Nation

She would have never got to the gun. She let her friend in. Do you go get your gun everytime a friend comes over with friends you dont know? She was caught off guard.

I'm all for guns but in this case all that would have happened is they would have found and stolen her gun.

Not necessarily.....and would you rather be legally banned from having a gun than having a gun in this attack....or the attack in the Wichita case I posted about?

And many people carry their guns.....so it would be likely if she had a gun for self defense she might very well have had it on her........

I dont want to ban guns. Just saying dont think it would have helped here.

The best thing she had was that camera. Maybe we need cameras on every corner. That way every criminal will get caught with a little detective work.

 

[Brain357]

Yes....it is far better to trust that the guys breaking into your home and brutalizing will not go that one step further and rape or murder you...since they have already shown they don't care about the law.....so it is better to be completely defenseless and hope for the best....that you might just get lucky and not get brutally beaten, raped, stabbed and murdered.......rather than defending yourself with a gun. Right?

More Intense Surveillance Footage Of Home Invasion Except This Victim Is Missing A Firearm To Fight Back With Concealed Nation

She would have never got to the gun. She let her friend in. Do you go get your gun everytime a friend comes over with friends you dont know? She was caught off guard.

I'm all for guns but in this case all that would have happened is they would have found and stolen her gun.

Not necessarily.....and would you rather be legally banned from having a gun than having a gun in this attack....or the attack in the Wichita case I posted about?

And many people carry their guns.....so it would be likely if she had a gun for self defense she might very well have had it on her........

I dont want to ban guns. Just saying dont think it would have helped here.

The best thing she had was that camera. Maybe we need cameras on every corner. That way every criminal will get caught with a little detective work.

I'm pretty sure all the alarm systems and cameras have played a big part in crime decreasing the last 30 years.

 

[sealybobo]

Except the very nature of the studies....where you think a criminal...... gets an anonymous phone call that asks if they used a gun in self defense.....of course if he answers yes...he has just admitted to comitting a felony to a stranger on the phone....a stranger who knows where he lives, and who is in the home.......since the caller could very well be a member of law enforcment.....

So you think it is in the criminals best interest to admit to an anonymous caller that they committed multiple felonies under the guise of a phone survey on self defense.........that they have an incentive to admit to multiple felonies that will land them in jail for years if they are caught....

Right? keep dreaming your anti gun dreams.......

Much of Klecks defense of his study is dependent on criminals responding. He is clear that most are committing unlawful possession of a gun! That is a crime. They are admitting to committing a crime. Sorry but you can't now say criminals won't respond when so much of his defense is dependent on it.

Also they would only be admitting a felony if they are in fact a felon. Many criminals have not yet been caught and are not felons.

No, most criminals have extensive criminal backgrounds going back to their teenage years.....

And wrong again on the unlawful possession point....this just shows that if anything his results come from an undercounting of defensive gun uses since savvy gun owners in the 90s....who knew they might be in legal trouble for carrying a gun without the petty paperwork would possibly be in trouble if caught would not include the gun in their response and not get counted....

So his 2.5 million number is closer to the truth than not.......and is supported by all the other research done by all the other researchers in the field.....

Sorry but most of his defense is dependent on criminals responding. You have to throw out most of his defense for your claim to be true. I don't think you want to do that.

This is why you can't trust the gun grabbers ever....brain constantly says most gun defenses are by criminals, by which he means actual criminals who make their livings going about raping, robbing, beating, stabbing and murdering people...that is the impression he wants you to have about these gun studies in general and Kleck's studies in particular, in that way he can discredit them as not applying to the law abiding citizen using a gun to stop a violent crime...and if the law abiding citizen isn't stopping criminal attack with guns.....we don't need them so get rid of them.....

But what the studies in general do and the Kleck study in particular points out, is that.....

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine


In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces.

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.

And what is criminal possession of a gun in a public place...a law abiding citizen who is not a career crimnal carrying a gun for self defense without paperwork....and this was back in the 90s before every state allowed people to exercise their right to self defense....but they carried a gun anyway since criminals also ignore peoples constitutional rights and ignore the law about carrying guns as a criminal.....

So brain is dishonest because he is a gun grabber...but a smart one who doesn't come right out like the anti-gun nuts and start talking about gun owners shooting minorities or our penis sizes in relation to our guns....he just always focuses on the negative, and distorts the actual research to always make it negative when it is the opposite.....

No, nothing dishonest. If you are breaking a law you are a criminal. Kleck is clear that most defenders are involved in unlawful behavior. If you think most defenders are not then please show me where any gun study makes that claim.

Look at George Zimmerman. He was out looking for trouble. Most people who dont have a gun get themselves out of trouble where if they had a gun they may over react.

 

[PredFan]

Right Wing News - THIS is what firearms and our Second... Facebook