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

[2aguy]

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

Wow...Daily Kos...now that is an unbiased, rabidly anti gun nuttery site........

 

[2aguy]

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

And of course the anti gun....that is rabidly anti gun, daily kos doesn't mention that Dr. Kleck isn't the only study that finds defensive gun use as really common....but his is the most detailed study on the subject...so they want to destroy him....of course he started out as an anti gunnner....and his own research made him rethink the issue....


I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

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

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

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

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

 

[Brain357]

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

Wow...Daily Kos...now that is an unbiased, rabidly anti gun nuttery site........

That doesn't change anything that is being said.

 

[Brain357]

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

And of course the anti gun....that is rabidly anti gun, daily kos doesn't mention that Dr. Kleck isn't the only study that finds defensive gun use as really common....but his is the most detailed study on the subject...so they want to destroy him....of course he started out as an anti gunnner....and his own research made him rethink the issue....


I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

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

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

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

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

All those studies show how inaccurate that gun studies are. If they were accurate they would all arrive at a similar number. Instead they range from 500k-3.6 million proving they are inherently inaccurate. When you start by asking about guns you get too many false positives. This is why the NCVS crime study is far more accurate. It also surveyed 90k people instead of 5,000 max for the gun studies. Larger sample is more accurate. NCVS says 108,000. Now that is a believable number.

 

[2aguy]

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

Wow...Daily Kos...now that is an unbiased, rabidly anti gun nuttery site........

That doesn't change anything that is being said.

Sure it does.....trained researchers in the fields of criminology and economics have done those studies......and of the 16 that we have easily available......not one is less than 760,000 and the majority find the number at over a million times a year....and if you average the studies that do not include police and military studies they average to 2 million a year...and that isn't just Kleck.....

I do see where you get your talking points now....you use the same words......interesting.....

 

[2aguy]

brain...the NCVS is not a gun study....and it can't even get an accurate picture on one of the things it actually studies, rape and sexual assault......

again...

Measures of Crime

the NCVS does not measure murder rates because the victims cannot be surveyed.

So it's murder rate number is wrong....

And it can't get the right number for rape and sexual assault either....


National Crime Victimization Survey A new report finds that the Justice Department has been undercounting instances of rape and sexual assault.

And another reason to not use the NCVS...they can't even count those things they are actually studying correctly, let alone something like guns that they aren't actually studying...

National Crime Victimization Survey A new report finds that the Justice Department has been undercounting instances of rape and sexual assault.



There is, in fact, an existing survey that has many of the attributes the NCVS currently lacks. It’s administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and it’s called the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. (NISVS is the acronym. Apologies for the alphabet soup.)

NISVS “represents the public health perspective,” as Tuesday’s report puts it, and it asks questions about specific behavior, including whether the survey-taker was unable to consent to sex because he or she had been drinking or taking drugs. NISVS was first conducted in 2010, so it doesn’t go back in time the way the NCVS numbers do. But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).

NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault.

And the main point in how inaccurate the NCVS is when it tries to measure something it actually studies.....


But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).

NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault.








Send

 

[Brain357]

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

Wow...Daily Kos...now that is an unbiased, rabidly anti gun nuttery site........

That doesn't change anything that is being said.

Sure it does.....trained researchers in the fields of criminology and economics have done those studies......and of the 16 that we have easily available......not one is less than 760,000 and the majority find the number at over a million times a year....and if you average the studies that do not include police and military studies they average to 2 million a year...and that isn't just Kleck.....

I do see where you get your talking points now....you use the same words......interesting.....

If the researchers were that great they would all arrive at a similar number. Instead they have a huge range of 500k-3.6 million proving they are not accurate.

Talking points? It is just common sense.

 

[Brain357]

brain...the NCVS is not a gun study....and it can't even get an accurate picture on one of the things it actually studies, rape and sexual assault......

again...

Measures of Crime

the NCVS does not measure murder rates because the victims cannot be surveyed.

So it's murder rate number is wrong....

I know. We can determine from the huge range of results that gun studies aren't accurate. A crime study however is, especially with such a huge sample size.

 

[2aguy]

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

Wow...Daily Kos...now that is an unbiased, rabidly anti gun nuttery site........

That doesn't change anything that is being said.

Sure it does.....trained researchers in the fields of criminology and economics have done those studies......and of the 16 that we have easily available......not one is less than 760,000 and the majority find the number at over a million times a year....and if you average the studies that do not include police and military studies they average to 2 million a year...and that isn't just Kleck.....

I do see where you get your talking points now....you use the same words......interesting.....

If the researchers were that great they would all arrive at a similar number. Instead they have a huge range of 500k-3.6 million proving they are not accurate.

Talking points? It is just common sense.

Kleck looked at the anti gun studies and tightened up the methods...that is why his study is more accurate than most....but again....you have 40 years of studies and not one puts the number below 760,000 and the majority put it over 1 million....and the average of studies that did not include police and military....2 million...

 

[Brain357]

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

Wow...Daily Kos...now that is an unbiased, rabidly anti gun nuttery site........

That doesn't change anything that is being said.

Sure it does.....trained researchers in the fields of criminology and economics have done those studies......and of the 16 that we have easily available......not one is less than 760,000 and the majority find the number at over a million times a year....and if you average the studies that do not include police and military studies they average to 2 million a year...and that isn't just Kleck.....

I do see where you get your talking points now....you use the same words......interesting.....

If the researchers were that great they would all arrive at a similar number. Instead they have a huge range of 500k-3.6 million proving they are not accurate.

Talking points? It is just common sense.

Kleck looked at the anti gun studies and tightened up the methods...that is why his study is more accurate than most....but again....you have 40 years of studies and not one puts the number below 760,000 and the majority put it over 1 million....and the average of studies that did not include police and military....2 million...

I know. We can determine from the huge range of results that gun studies aren't accurate. A crime study however is, especially with such a huge sample size. The huge numbers just don't match up with reality. If they were true just about every gun owner would have one. Reality is it's rare to find anyone with one. If the numbers were so huge there would be many in the news each day. Reality is maybe 50 a year make the news. If the numbers were true, thousands of criminals would be shot and killed each year. In reality it is about 230 a year. Reality just doesn't agree with you.

You can continue to believe in a debunked study which only had 50 positives if you want. But the majority of people know it isn't in the millions. You can't estimate 2.5 million from only 50 positives.

 

[2aguy]

and here Kleck takes apart both he,newly and kellerman, and the anti research methods used by other gun grabbers...it is quite thorough in its analysis of anti gun biased work by these hacks.....

https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/journals/JFPP11.pdf

These critics do not mainly support the low-DGU thesis by affirmatively presenting relevant empirical evidence indicating few DGUs. The only empirical evidence affirmatively cited in support of the low-DGU thesis is the uniquely low estimates derived from the NCVS. The critics appear in no way embarrassed by the fact that the only national estimate they can cite in support of their theory is a survey that does not even ask respondents the key question––whether they have used a gun for self-protection. Instead, the critics get around the large volume of contrary survey evidence by pronouncing all of it invalid and
insisting that all surveys (excepting the NCVS?) grossly overstate the frequency of DGU.

Wow....it's like he is talking about you directly brain.....

and he goes on to say later in the paper....

The reality, however, is that academic gun control believers greatly outnumber skeptics. Consider, for example, the members of the Criminology Advisory Board of the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, which published Hemenway’s attack on the NSDS. The Board includes such pro-control luminaries as Richard Block, Alfred Blumstein, Roland Chilton, Philip Cook, Jeffrey Fagan, Rosemary Gartner, John Hagan, Richard McCleary, Steven Messner, Daniel S. Nagin, Lawrence Sherman, Wesley Skogan, and Marvin Wolfgang, but does not include even one scholar who has publicly expressed skepticism about gun control (see p. vii of the Summer 1997 issue).

If scholars are allowed to indulge in one-sided speculation that inevitably leads to conclusions preordained by their biases, impressions about the evidence will be determined largely by the numbers of advocates publishing articles, rather than the strength of the evidence.

 

[2aguy]

And Kleck points out...

Once large estimates of DGU frequency became too numerous and widespread to simply ignore, adherents of the rare- DGU thesis shifted to another tactic, which will be discussed at length herein. On those rare occasions when they briefly and very partially address some of the contrary evidence, they counter evidence with one-sided speculation rather than better empirical information.

And further along....

The Police Foundation survey, while based on a sample only half that of the NSDS, was modeled after, and otherwise comparable to, the NSDS, and included even more questions getting at details of alleged DGUs. It strongly confirmed the results of the Kleck-Gertz NSDS, yielding estimates, where comparable, of annual DGU frequency that were within sampling error of those obtained by Kleck and Gertz (Cook and Ludwig 1997, esp. pp. 62-63).

 

[Brain357]

And Kleck points out...

Once large estimates of DGU frequency became too numerous and widespread to simply ignore, adherents of the rare- DGU thesis shifted to another tactic, which will be discussed at length herein. On those rare occasions when they briefly and very partially address some of the contrary evidence, they counter evidence with one-sided speculation rather than better empirical information.

And further along....

The Police Foundation survey, while based on a sample only half that of the NSDS, was modeled after, and otherwise comparable to, the NSDS, and included even more questions getting at details of alleged DGUs. It strongly confirmed the results of the Kleck-Gertz NSDS, yielding estimates, where comparable, of annual DGU frequency that were within sampling error of those obtained by Kleck and Gertz (Cook and Ludwig 1997, esp. pp. 62-63).

The huge numbers just don't match up with reality. If they were true just about every gun owner would have one. Reality is it's rare to find anyone with one. If the numbers were so huge there would be many in the news each day. Reality is maybe 50 a year make the news. If the numbers were true, thousands of criminals would be shot and killed each year. In reality it is about 230 a year. Reality just doesn't agree with you.

 

[2aguy]

Again brain....law abiding gun owners are not criminals...they are not looking to kill people for pleasure and do not seek out people to kill...when they are attacked they only pull the trigger as a last resort........you should be proud of Americans....with 2million defensive gun uses, on average each year, they only really need to kill a very small number of criminals to survive.....why?

1) criminals don't want to be shot for the most part...there are some who will advance on a victim who is pointing a gun at them...I have read the stories....but even then the victim usually gives them a chance to stop......and then most of those idiots do...they run away or surrender....

2) criminals confronted by armed victims run away or surrender...see 1) they don't want to be shot.......

3) having studied defensive gun use...something anti gunners should actually do before they say stupid things based on fantasies in their heads and not reality.....if they actually studied law abiding citizens using guns for self defense they would see that for the most part, Americans do the right thing even in the middle of a horrible, violent criminal attack....they only shoot when there is no other option, and most of the time they simply hold the attacker for police....why? Because they aren't sociopaths who like to kill.....the problem is that anti gunners don't like other human beings......so the ascribe all kinds of horrible feelings and emotions to other normal, law abiding human beings that aren't real....that is why so many anti gunners are anti gunners......they fear other people......and that makes them want to end that fear and since they know they can't control actual crimnals...they seek relief of their anxiety by trying to disarm everyone else, since they know law abiding citizens actually will surrender their guns if the law tells them to...

So no, it is no big surprise that more criminals aren't killed by normal citizens...normal citizens who just want to be left alone to live their lives........

But for anti gunners....they just know...in their delusional fantasies....that people who want guns for protection are killers just itching to kill their first human being......and they are wrong...but it controls how they view guns....

 

[2aguy]

And Kleck points out...

Once large estimates of DGU frequency became too numerous and widespread to simply ignore, adherents of the rare- DGU thesis shifted to another tactic, which will be discussed at length herein. On those rare occasions when they briefly and very partially address some of the contrary evidence, they counter evidence with one-sided speculation rather than better empirical information.

And further along....

The Police Foundation survey, while based on a sample only half that of the NSDS, was modeled after, and otherwise comparable to, the NSDS, and included even more questions getting at details of alleged DGUs. It strongly confirmed the results of the Kleck-Gertz NSDS, yielding estimates, where comparable, of annual DGU frequency that were within sampling error of those obtained by Kleck and Gertz (Cook and Ludwig 1997, esp. pp. 62-63).

The huge numbers just don't match up with reality. If they were true just about every gun owner would have one. Reality is it's rare to find anyone with one. If the numbers were so huge there would be many in the news each day. Reality is maybe 50 a year make the news. If the numbers were true, thousands of criminals would be shot and killed each year. In reality it is about 230 a year. Reality just doesn't agree with you.

And reality is reality brain...as revealed in all the studies on defensive gun use...done over 40 years, by both private and public researchers, separate studies.....by both anti gunners, and neutral researchers, and they have all found that defensive gun use is common, and happens all the time......no less than 760,000 times a year....and on average the studies that exclude military and police shootings show the average is 2 million times a year...with the vast majority of all actual self defense with gun studies showing the number well over 1 million.....

That is actual researchers, from the fields of criminology and economics, using actual research methods to determine the numbers.....actually asking people about defensive gun use.......

 

[Brain357]

And Kleck points out...

Once large estimates of DGU frequency became too numerous and widespread to simply ignore, adherents of the rare- DGU thesis shifted to another tactic, which will be discussed at length herein. On those rare occasions when they briefly and very partially address some of the contrary evidence, they counter evidence with one-sided speculation rather than better empirical information.

And further along....

The Police Foundation survey, while based on a sample only half that of the NSDS, was modeled after, and otherwise comparable to, the NSDS, and included even more questions getting at details of alleged DGUs. It strongly confirmed the results of the Kleck-Gertz NSDS, yielding estimates, where comparable, of annual DGU frequency that were within sampling error of those obtained by Kleck and Gertz (Cook and Ludwig 1997, esp. pp. 62-63).

The huge numbers just don't match up with reality. If they were true just about every gun owner would have one. Reality is it's rare to find anyone with one. If the numbers were so huge there would be many in the news each day. Reality is maybe 50 a year make the news. If the numbers were true, thousands of criminals would be shot and killed each year. In reality it is about 230 a year. Reality just doesn't agree with you.

And reality is reality brain...as revealed in all the studies on defensive gun use...done over 40 years, by both private and public researchers, separate studies.....by both anti gunners, and neutral researchers, and they have all found that defensive gun use is common, and happens all the time......no less than 760,000 times a year....and on average the studies that exclude military and police shootings show the average is 2 million times a year...with the vast majority of all actual self defense with gun studies showing the number well over 1 million.....

That is actual researchers, from the fields of criminology and economics, using actual research methods to determine the numbers.....actually asking people about defensive gun use.......

It seems all you have are gun studies that can't agree on a number. You don't have any reality.

 

[2aguy]

And Kleck points out...

Once large estimates of DGU frequency became too numerous and widespread to simply ignore, adherents of the rare- DGU thesis shifted to another tactic, which will be discussed at length herein. On those rare occasions when they briefly and very partially address some of the contrary evidence, they counter evidence with one-sided speculation rather than better empirical information.

And further along....

The Police Foundation survey, while based on a sample only half that of the NSDS, was modeled after, and otherwise comparable to, the NSDS, and included even more questions getting at details of alleged DGUs. It strongly confirmed the results of the Kleck-Gertz NSDS, yielding estimates, where comparable, of annual DGU frequency that were within sampling error of those obtained by Kleck and Gertz (Cook and Ludwig 1997, esp. pp. 62-63).

The huge numbers just don't match up with reality. If they were true just about every gun owner would have one. Reality is it's rare to find anyone with one. If the numbers were so huge there would be many in the news each day. Reality is maybe 50 a year make the news. If the numbers were true, thousands of criminals would be shot and killed each year. In reality it is about 230 a year. Reality just doesn't agree with you.

And reality is reality brain...as revealed in all the studies on defensive gun use...done over 40 years, by both private and public researchers, separate studies.....by both anti gunners, and neutral researchers, and they have all found that defensive gun use is common, and happens all the time......no less than 760,000 times a year....and on average the studies that exclude military and police shootings show the average is 2 million times a year...with the vast majority of all actual self defense with gun studies showing the number well over 1 million.....

That is actual researchers, from the fields of criminology and economics, using actual research methods to determine the numbers.....actually asking people about defensive gun use.......

It seems all you have are gun studies that can't agree on a number. You don't have any reality.

I have research by professionals in the field....you have a number that makes you feel good about banning guns.....

 

[Brain357]

And Kleck points out...

Once large estimates of DGU frequency became too numerous and widespread to simply ignore, adherents of the rare- DGU thesis shifted to another tactic, which will be discussed at length herein. On those rare occasions when they briefly and very partially address some of the contrary evidence, they counter evidence with one-sided speculation rather than better empirical information.

And further along....

The Police Foundation survey, while based on a sample only half that of the NSDS, was modeled after, and otherwise comparable to, the NSDS, and included even more questions getting at details of alleged DGUs. It strongly confirmed the results of the Kleck-Gertz NSDS, yielding estimates, where comparable, of annual DGU frequency that were within sampling error of those obtained by Kleck and Gertz (Cook and Ludwig 1997, esp. pp. 62-63).

The huge numbers just don't match up with reality. If they were true just about every gun owner would have one. Reality is it's rare to find anyone with one. If the numbers were so huge there would be many in the news each day. Reality is maybe 50 a year make the news. If the numbers were true, thousands of criminals would be shot and killed each year. In reality it is about 230 a year. Reality just doesn't agree with you.

And reality is reality brain...as revealed in all the studies on defensive gun use...done over 40 years, by both private and public researchers, separate studies.....by both anti gunners, and neutral researchers, and they have all found that defensive gun use is common, and happens all the time......no less than 760,000 times a year....and on average the studies that exclude military and police shootings show the average is 2 million times a year...with the vast majority of all actual self defense with gun studies showing the number well over 1 million.....

That is actual researchers, from the fields of criminology and economics, using actual research methods to determine the numbers.....actually asking people about defensive gun use.......

It seems all you have are gun studies that can't agree on a number. You don't have any reality.

I have research by professionals in the field....you have a number that makes you feel good about banning guns.....

You have studies that don't agree. You have surveys without a single confirmed defense. No reality.

 

[2aguy]

And Kleck points out...

Once large estimates of DGU frequency became too numerous and widespread to simply ignore, adherents of the rare- DGU thesis shifted to another tactic, which will be discussed at length herein. On those rare occasions when they briefly and very partially address some of the contrary evidence, they counter evidence with one-sided speculation rather than better empirical information.

And further along....

The Police Foundation survey, while based on a sample only half that of the NSDS, was modeled after, and otherwise comparable to, the NSDS, and included even more questions getting at details of alleged DGUs. It strongly confirmed the results of the Kleck-Gertz NSDS, yielding estimates, where comparable, of annual DGU frequency that were within sampling error of those obtained by Kleck and Gertz (Cook and Ludwig 1997, esp. pp. 62-63).

The huge numbers just don't match up with reality. If they were true just about every gun owner would have one. Reality is it's rare to find anyone with one. If the numbers were so huge there would be many in the news each day. Reality is maybe 50 a year make the news. If the numbers were true, thousands of criminals would be shot and killed each year. In reality it is about 230 a year. Reality just doesn't agree with you.

And reality is reality brain...as revealed in all the studies on defensive gun use...done over 40 years, by both private and public researchers, separate studies.....by both anti gunners, and neutral researchers, and they have all found that defensive gun use is common, and happens all the time......no less than 760,000 times a year....and on average the studies that exclude military and police shootings show the average is 2 million times a year...with the vast majority of all actual self defense with gun studies showing the number well over 1 million.....

That is actual researchers, from the fields of criminology and economics, using actual research methods to determine the numbers.....actually asking people about defensive gun use.......

It seems all you have are gun studies that can't agree on a number. You don't have any reality.

I have research by professionals in the field....you have a number that makes you feel good about banning guns.....

You have studies that don't agree. You have surveys without a single confirmed defense. No reality.

Brain...I am currently involved in a "play date" with the other liberal gun grabbers today.....I will play with you tomorrow....but don't be jealous....they are pretty stupid.....you are at least not as annoying as them.....

 

[Brain357]

The huge numbers just don't match up with reality. If they were true just about every gun owner would have one. Reality is it's rare to find anyone with one. If the numbers were so huge there would be many in the news each day. Reality is maybe 50 a year make the news. If the numbers were true, thousands of criminals would be shot and killed each year. In reality it is about 230 a year. Reality just doesn't agree with you.

And reality is reality brain...as revealed in all the studies on defensive gun use...done over 40 years, by both private and public researchers, separate studies.....by both anti gunners, and neutral researchers, and they have all found that defensive gun use is common, and happens all the time......no less than 760,000 times a year....and on average the studies that exclude military and police shootings show the average is 2 million times a year...with the vast majority of all actual self defense with gun studies showing the number well over 1 million.....

That is actual researchers, from the fields of criminology and economics, using actual research methods to determine the numbers.....actually asking people about defensive gun use.......

It seems all you have are gun studies that can't agree on a number. You don't have any reality.

I have research by professionals in the field....you have a number that makes you feel good about banning guns.....

You have studies that don't agree. You have surveys without a single confirmed defense. No reality.

Brain...I am currently involved in a "play date" with the other liberal gun grabbers today.....I will play with you tomorrow....but don't be jealous....they are pretty stupid.....you are at least not as annoying as them.....

Have fun.