Children accidently shoot someone every 36 hours

[Brain357]

I have to admit, even if we take a low-end estimate of 800,000 violent crimes prevented (this number still seems really high to me, but supposing it's legitimate) we're looking at ~3,500 violent crimes prevented by civilians per accidental child shooting in 2015 (the projected total number of shootings, going by the numbers in the OP).

I'll just say that if we trust both numbers to be even remotely accurate, I don't see how anyone can reasonably stack 3,500 against 1 and come out with a "not worth the risk" assessment. Maybe 30:1 I could see tipping the scales, but we're more than two orders of magnitude away from that.

Having said this, the US does have ridiculously high crime rates by OECD standards, and it's not folly to hypothesize that at least some of the difference is attributable to US citizenry being armed to the teeth. I emphasize 'some'. Americans are inherently more violent and rebellious than most western nations--it just seems to be part of your culture, guns or not--and you have a particularly stark divide between the haves and the have-nots, with a sprawling underclass. Suffice it to say I could believe that guns are a symptom rather than a cause of elevated rates of violent crime in America.

Keep in mind all 800k wouldn't be violent crimes. Most would be property crimes. And the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity. The 108k estimate by the ncvs is far more accurate.

108K would make it 480:1. I'm saying 30:1 would be a reasonable point at which to consider guns not worth the risk, so you still need to make up a factor of 16 somewhere.

What am I making up a factor of 16 for? I'm not suggesting banning guns.

Are you counting all the crimes committed with guns? We only have 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are a minority. The most lives saved possible is under 10k.

Technically, the upper limit on lives saved per year is the number of self-defense uses against violent crimes per year, wherein we assume that every thwarted violent offense would lead to a death. Obviously that's not realistic, but that's the hard upper limit.

You've cited 75 accidental shootings in the first four months of 2015, roughly a third of which were fatal. Extrapolated to the whole of 2015, that's 225 shootings per year, 78 of which are fatal. I'm comparing this number (255) to the average yearly number of thwarted violent offenses, which you're claiming is 108,000, and that yields a ratio of 1:480.

As far as I'm concerned, the certain harm caused by one accidental shooting is preferable to the harm that would potentially be caused by 30 violent crimes. Hence my "cutoff" is 1:30. The actual ratio, 1:480 is therefore too high by a factor of 480/30 = 16. If you wanted to make the argument that banning guns would reduce harm (which up until now I thought was the point you were arguing) you would need to make up--meaning "find other factors to account for"--this remaining factor of 16.

If you're not interested in banning guns or discouraging Americans from owning them, you can ignore all of the above. But in that case, I don't know what point you're trying to make in this thread. In my experience, people only post about gun tragedies when they're making a case for stricter gun control.

And again...the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a study on guns.....it is not a study on using guns for self defense.......that is why the number is so out of range with all of the other studies....but that is also why it is embraced by anti gun groups...it is the only study they have that supports their position, again, even though it has nothing to do with the defensive use of guns.........

So if we take the lowest, government study estimate conducted by the clinton Department of Justice....the number was 1.5 million.......now compare that to 505 accidental gun deaths each year..........

The ncvs is a government study. 90k households. Far more accurate than any gun studies loaded with false positives.

 

[2aguy]

...

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)....

I have to admit, even if we take a low-end estimate of 800,000 violent crimes prevented (this number still seems really high to me, but supposing it's legitimate) we're looking at ~3,500 violent crimes prevented by civilians per accidental child shooting in 2015 (the projected total number of shootings, going by the numbers in the OP).

I'll just say that if we trust both numbers to be even remotely accurate, I don't see how anyone can reasonably stack 3,500 against 1 and come out with a "not worth the risk" assessment. Maybe 30:1 I could see tipping the scales, but we're more than two orders of magnitude away from that.

Having said this, the US does have ridiculously high crime rates by OECD standards, and it's not folly to hypothesize that at least some of the difference is attributable to US citizenry being armed to the teeth. I emphasize 'some'. Americans are inherently more violent and rebellious than most western nations--it just seems to be part of your culture, guns or not--and you have a particularly stark divide between the haves and the have-nots, with a sprawling underclass. Suffice it to say I could believe that guns are a symptom rather than a cause of elevated rates of violent crime in America.

Keep in mind all 800k wouldn't be violent crimes. Most would be property crimes. And the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity. The 108k estimate by the ncvs is far more accurate.

108K would make it 480:1. I'm saying 30:1 would be a reasonable point at which to consider guns not worth the risk, so you still need to make up a factor of 16 somewhere.

What am I making up a factor of 16 for? I'm not suggesting banning guns.

Are you counting all the crimes committed with guns? We only have 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are a minority. The most lives saved possible is under 10k.

Technically, the upper limit on lives saved per year is the number of self-defense uses against violent crimes per year, wherein we assume that every thwarted violent offense would lead to a death. Obviously that's not realistic, but that's the hard upper limit.

You've cited 75 accidental shootings in the first four months of 2015, roughly a third of which were fatal. Extrapolated to the whole of 2015, that's 225 shootings per year, 78 of which are fatal. I'm comparing this number (255) to the average yearly number of thwarted violent offenses, which you're claiming is 108,000, and that yields a ratio of 1:480.

As far as I'm concerned, the certain harm caused by one accidental shooting is preferable to the harm that would potentially be caused by 30 violent crimes. Hence my "cutoff" is 1:30. The actual ratio, 1:480 is therefore too high by a factor of 480/30 = 16. If you wanted to make the argument that banning guns would reduce harm (which up until now I thought was the point you were arguing) you would need to make up--meaning "find other factors to account for"--this remaining factor of 16.

If you're not interested in banning guns or discouraging Americans from owning them, you can ignore all of the above. But in that case, I don't know what point you're trying to make in this thread. In my experience, people only post about gun tragedies when they're making a case for stricter gun control.

In my experience, people only post about gun tragedies when they're making a case for stricter gun control

That is what he is doing...he, like many people opposed to guns, wants to seem reasonable so that people won't question his goal.....

 

[Brain357]

Keep in mind all 800k wouldn't be violent crimes. Most would be property crimes. And the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity. The 108k estimate by the ncvs is far more accurate.

108K would make it 480:1. I'm saying 30:1 would be a reasonable point at which to consider guns not worth the risk, so you still need to make up a factor of 16 somewhere.

What am I making up a factor of 16 for? I'm not suggesting banning guns.

Are you counting all the crimes committed with guns? We only have 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are a minority. The most lives saved possible is under 10k.

Technically, the upper limit on lives saved per year is the number of self-defense uses against violent crimes per year, wherein we assume that every thwarted violent offense would lead to a death. Obviously that's not realistic, but that's the hard upper limit.

You've cited 75 accidental shootings in the first four months of 2015, roughly a third of which were fatal. Extrapolated to the whole of 2015, that's 225 shootings per year, 78 of which are fatal. I'm comparing this number (255) to the average yearly number of thwarted violent offenses, which you're claiming is 108,000, and that yields a ratio of 1:480.

As far as I'm concerned, the certain harm caused by one accidental shooting is preferable to the harm that would potentially be caused by 30 violent crimes. Hence my "cutoff" is 1:30. The actual ratio, 1:480 is therefore too high by a factor of 480/30 = 16. If you wanted to make the argument that banning guns would reduce harm (which up until now I thought was the point you were arguing) you would need to make up--meaning "find other factors to account for"--this remaining factor of 16.

If you're not interested in banning guns or discouraging Americans from owning them, you can ignore all of the above. But in that case, I don't know what point you're trying to make in this thread. In my experience, people only post about gun tragedies when they're making a case for stricter gun control.

These are just those involving children. There are about 500 accidental deaths each year total. And again there are 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are about 40% of the population so the most lives they could possibly be saving is 4000. And the number is certainly less than that as many armed defenders are themselves killed. Meanwhile about 8500 of the homicides are with guns.

The point was to draw attention to the issue and offer suggestions to save lives. Banning guns is not the only thing that can be done. If guns are stored properly kids can't get them.

Actually brain, in 2013 there were 8,454 gun murders...which is going down......and no matter how well you store guns, alcohol, drug abuse and criminals in the home will lead to children accidentally finding guns......

And in a country of over 320 million people....under 100 children a year die from accidental gun deaths........that is a pretty good stat considering 90 million homes have guns in them........

I would like to see the number go down.

 

[2aguy]

Keep in mind all 800k wouldn't be violent crimes. Most would be property crimes. And the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity. The 108k estimate by the ncvs is far more accurate.

108K would make it 480:1. I'm saying 30:1 would be a reasonable point at which to consider guns not worth the risk, so you still need to make up a factor of 16 somewhere.

What am I making up a factor of 16 for? I'm not suggesting banning guns.

Are you counting all the crimes committed with guns? We only have 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are a minority. The most lives saved possible is under 10k.

Technically, the upper limit on lives saved per year is the number of self-defense uses against violent crimes per year, wherein we assume that every thwarted violent offense would lead to a death. Obviously that's not realistic, but that's the hard upper limit.

You've cited 75 accidental shootings in the first four months of 2015, roughly a third of which were fatal. Extrapolated to the whole of 2015, that's 225 shootings per year, 78 of which are fatal. I'm comparing this number (255) to the average yearly number of thwarted violent offenses, which you're claiming is 108,000, and that yields a ratio of 1:480.

As far as I'm concerned, the certain harm caused by one accidental shooting is preferable to the harm that would potentially be caused by 30 violent crimes. Hence my "cutoff" is 1:30. The actual ratio, 1:480 is therefore too high by a factor of 480/30 = 16. If you wanted to make the argument that banning guns would reduce harm (which up until now I thought was the point you were arguing) you would need to make up--meaning "find other factors to account for"--this remaining factor of 16.

If you're not interested in banning guns or discouraging Americans from owning them, you can ignore all of the above. But in that case, I don't know what point you're trying to make in this thread. In my experience, people only post about gun tragedies when they're making a case for stricter gun control.

And again...the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a study on guns.....it is not a study on using guns for self defense.......that is why the number is so out of range with all of the other studies....but that is also why it is embraced by anti gun groups...it is the only study they have that supports their position, again, even though it has nothing to do with the defensive use of guns.........

So if we take the lowest, government study estimate conducted by the clinton Department of Justice....the number was 1.5 million.......now compare that to 505 accidental gun deaths each year..........

The ncvs is a government study. 90k households. Far more accurate than any gun studies loaded with false positives.

The NCVS does not use the word gun when it asks its questions...it is not a study on the defensive use of guns....like asking people what car they drive, getting to a question about where they drive it, and when someone says they go to the store asking did you buy anything and then they self report "Cheese" ......and then deciding that the study tells us all about cheese consumption in the United States.........

The NCVs can't tell us anything about guns in any meaningful way....but cling to it because it is all you have brain...the truth, reality don't back up your beliefs....

 

[Brain357]

I have to admit, even if we take a low-end estimate of 800,000 violent crimes prevented (this number still seems really high to me, but supposing it's legitimate) we're looking at ~3,500 violent crimes prevented by civilians per accidental child shooting in 2015 (the projected total number of shootings, going by the numbers in the OP).

I'll just say that if we trust both numbers to be even remotely accurate, I don't see how anyone can reasonably stack 3,500 against 1 and come out with a "not worth the risk" assessment. Maybe 30:1 I could see tipping the scales, but we're more than two orders of magnitude away from that.

Having said this, the US does have ridiculously high crime rates by OECD standards, and it's not folly to hypothesize that at least some of the difference is attributable to US citizenry being armed to the teeth. I emphasize 'some'. Americans are inherently more violent and rebellious than most western nations--it just seems to be part of your culture, guns or not--and you have a particularly stark divide between the haves and the have-nots, with a sprawling underclass. Suffice it to say I could believe that guns are a symptom rather than a cause of elevated rates of violent crime in America.

Keep in mind all 800k wouldn't be violent crimes. Most would be property crimes. And the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity. The 108k estimate by the ncvs is far more accurate.

108K would make it 480:1. I'm saying 30:1 would be a reasonable point at which to consider guns not worth the risk, so you still need to make up a factor of 16 somewhere.

What am I making up a factor of 16 for? I'm not suggesting banning guns.

Are you counting all the crimes committed with guns? We only have 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are a minority. The most lives saved possible is under 10k.

Technically, the upper limit on lives saved per year is the number of self-defense uses against violent crimes per year, wherein we assume that every thwarted violent offense would lead to a death. Obviously that's not realistic, but that's the hard upper limit.

You've cited 75 accidental shootings in the first four months of 2015, roughly a third of which were fatal. Extrapolated to the whole of 2015, that's 225 shootings per year, 78 of which are fatal. I'm comparing this number (255) to the average yearly number of thwarted violent offenses, which you're claiming is 108,000, and that yields a ratio of 1:480.

As far as I'm concerned, the certain harm caused by one accidental shooting is preferable to the harm that would potentially be caused by 30 violent crimes. Hence my "cutoff" is 1:30. The actual ratio, 1:480 is therefore too high by a factor of 480/30 = 16. If you wanted to make the argument that banning guns would reduce harm (which up until now I thought was the point you were arguing) you would need to make up--meaning "find other factors to account for"--this remaining factor of 16.

If you're not interested in banning guns or discouraging Americans from owning them, you can ignore all of the above. But in that case, I don't know what point you're trying to make in this thread. In my experience, people only post about gun tragedies when they're making a case for stricter gun control.

In my experience, people only post about gun tragedies when they're making a case for stricter gun control

That is what he is doing...he, like many people opposed to guns, wants to seem reasonable so that people won't question his goal.....

And you work for a gun company or the nra.

 

[2aguy]

108K would make it 480:1. I'm saying 30:1 would be a reasonable point at which to consider guns not worth the risk, so you still need to make up a factor of 16 somewhere.

What am I making up a factor of 16 for? I'm not suggesting banning guns.

Are you counting all the crimes committed with guns? We only have 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are a minority. The most lives saved possible is under 10k.

Technically, the upper limit on lives saved per year is the number of self-defense uses against violent crimes per year, wherein we assume that every thwarted violent offense would lead to a death. Obviously that's not realistic, but that's the hard upper limit.

You've cited 75 accidental shootings in the first four months of 2015, roughly a third of which were fatal. Extrapolated to the whole of 2015, that's 225 shootings per year, 78 of which are fatal. I'm comparing this number (255) to the average yearly number of thwarted violent offenses, which you're claiming is 108,000, and that yields a ratio of 1:480.

As far as I'm concerned, the certain harm caused by one accidental shooting is preferable to the harm that would potentially be caused by 30 violent crimes. Hence my "cutoff" is 1:30. The actual ratio, 1:480 is therefore too high by a factor of 480/30 = 16. If you wanted to make the argument that banning guns would reduce harm (which up until now I thought was the point you were arguing) you would need to make up--meaning "find other factors to account for"--this remaining factor of 16.

If you're not interested in banning guns or discouraging Americans from owning them, you can ignore all of the above. But in that case, I don't know what point you're trying to make in this thread. In my experience, people only post about gun tragedies when they're making a case for stricter gun control.

These are just those involving children. There are about 500 accidental deaths each year total. And again there are 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are about 40% of the population so the most lives they could possibly be saving is 4000. And the number is certainly less than that as many armed defenders are themselves killed. Meanwhile about 8500 of the homicides are with guns.

The point was to draw attention to the issue and offer suggestions to save lives. Banning guns is not the only thing that can be done. If guns are stored properly kids can't get them.

Actually brain, in 2013 there were 8,454 gun murders...which is going down......and no matter how well you store guns, alcohol, drug abuse and criminals in the home will lead to children accidentally finding guns......

And in a country of over 320 million people....under 100 children a year die from accidental gun deaths........that is a pretty good stat considering 90 million homes have guns in them........

I would like to see the number go down.

I would like to see all child deaths go down....I am just more concerned about child death than focused just on getting guns out of the hands of Americans......

 

[2aguy]

Keep in mind all 800k wouldn't be violent crimes. Most would be property crimes. And the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity. The 108k estimate by the ncvs is far more accurate.

108K would make it 480:1. I'm saying 30:1 would be a reasonable point at which to consider guns not worth the risk, so you still need to make up a factor of 16 somewhere.

What am I making up a factor of 16 for? I'm not suggesting banning guns.

Are you counting all the crimes committed with guns? We only have 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are a minority. The most lives saved possible is under 10k.

Technically, the upper limit on lives saved per year is the number of self-defense uses against violent crimes per year, wherein we assume that every thwarted violent offense would lead to a death. Obviously that's not realistic, but that's the hard upper limit.

You've cited 75 accidental shootings in the first four months of 2015, roughly a third of which were fatal. Extrapolated to the whole of 2015, that's 225 shootings per year, 78 of which are fatal. I'm comparing this number (255) to the average yearly number of thwarted violent offenses, which you're claiming is 108,000, and that yields a ratio of 1:480.

As far as I'm concerned, the certain harm caused by one accidental shooting is preferable to the harm that would potentially be caused by 30 violent crimes. Hence my "cutoff" is 1:30. The actual ratio, 1:480 is therefore too high by a factor of 480/30 = 16. If you wanted to make the argument that banning guns would reduce harm (which up until now I thought was the point you were arguing) you would need to make up--meaning "find other factors to account for"--this remaining factor of 16.

If you're not interested in banning guns or discouraging Americans from owning them, you can ignore all of the above. But in that case, I don't know what point you're trying to make in this thread. In my experience, people only post about gun tragedies when they're making a case for stricter gun control.

In my experience, people only post about gun tragedies when they're making a case for stricter gun control

That is what he is doing...he, like many people opposed to guns, wants to seem reasonable so that people won't question his goal.....

And you work for a gun company or the nra.

No...I don't.....

 

[Brain357]

108K would make it 480:1. I'm saying 30:1 would be a reasonable point at which to consider guns not worth the risk, so you still need to make up a factor of 16 somewhere.

What am I making up a factor of 16 for? I'm not suggesting banning guns.

Are you counting all the crimes committed with guns? We only have 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are a minority. The most lives saved possible is under 10k.

Technically, the upper limit on lives saved per year is the number of self-defense uses against violent crimes per year, wherein we assume that every thwarted violent offense would lead to a death. Obviously that's not realistic, but that's the hard upper limit.

You've cited 75 accidental shootings in the first four months of 2015, roughly a third of which were fatal. Extrapolated to the whole of 2015, that's 225 shootings per year, 78 of which are fatal. I'm comparing this number (255) to the average yearly number of thwarted violent offenses, which you're claiming is 108,000, and that yields a ratio of 1:480.

As far as I'm concerned, the certain harm caused by one accidental shooting is preferable to the harm that would potentially be caused by 30 violent crimes. Hence my "cutoff" is 1:30. The actual ratio, 1:480 is therefore too high by a factor of 480/30 = 16. If you wanted to make the argument that banning guns would reduce harm (which up until now I thought was the point you were arguing) you would need to make up--meaning "find other factors to account for"--this remaining factor of 16.

If you're not interested in banning guns or discouraging Americans from owning them, you can ignore all of the above. But in that case, I don't know what point you're trying to make in this thread. In my experience, people only post about gun tragedies when they're making a case for stricter gun control.

And again...the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a study on guns.....it is not a study on using guns for self defense.......that is why the number is so out of range with all of the other studies....but that is also why it is embraced by anti gun groups...it is the only study they have that supports their position, again, even though it has nothing to do with the defensive use of guns.........

So if we take the lowest, government study estimate conducted by the clinton Department of Justice....the number was 1.5 million.......now compare that to 505 accidental gun deaths each year..........

The ncvs is a government study. 90k households. Far more accurate than any gun studies loaded with false positives.

The NCVS does not use the word gun when it asks its questions...it is not a study on the defensive use of guns....like asking people what car they drive, getting to a question about where they drive it, and when someone says they go to the store asking did you buy anything and then they self report "Cheese" ......and then deciding that the study tells us all about cheese consumption in the United States.........

The NCVs can't tell us anything about guns in any meaningful way....but cling to it because it is all you have brain...the truth, reality don't back up your beliefs....

They clearly ask what happened during the attempted crime. Yes that includes chasing them away with a gun.

 

[Brain357]

What am I making up a factor of 16 for? I'm not suggesting banning guns.

Are you counting all the crimes committed with guns? We only have 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are a minority. The most lives saved possible is under 10k.

Technically, the upper limit on lives saved per year is the number of self-defense uses against violent crimes per year, wherein we assume that every thwarted violent offense would lead to a death. Obviously that's not realistic, but that's the hard upper limit.

You've cited 75 accidental shootings in the first four months of 2015, roughly a third of which were fatal. Extrapolated to the whole of 2015, that's 225 shootings per year, 78 of which are fatal. I'm comparing this number (255) to the average yearly number of thwarted violent offenses, which you're claiming is 108,000, and that yields a ratio of 1:480.

As far as I'm concerned, the certain harm caused by one accidental shooting is preferable to the harm that would potentially be caused by 30 violent crimes. Hence my "cutoff" is 1:30. The actual ratio, 1:480 is therefore too high by a factor of 480/30 = 16. If you wanted to make the argument that banning guns would reduce harm (which up until now I thought was the point you were arguing) you would need to make up--meaning "find other factors to account for"--this remaining factor of 16.

If you're not interested in banning guns or discouraging Americans from owning them, you can ignore all of the above. But in that case, I don't know what point you're trying to make in this thread. In my experience, people only post about gun tragedies when they're making a case for stricter gun control.

These are just those involving children. There are about 500 accidental deaths each year total. And again there are 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are about 40% of the population so the most lives they could possibly be saving is 4000. And the number is certainly less than that as many armed defenders are themselves killed. Meanwhile about 8500 of the homicides are with guns.

The point was to draw attention to the issue and offer suggestions to save lives. Banning guns is not the only thing that can be done. If guns are stored properly kids can't get them.

Actually brain, in 2013 there were 8,454 gun murders...which is going down......and no matter how well you store guns, alcohol, drug abuse and criminals in the home will lead to children accidentally finding guns......

And in a country of over 320 million people....under 100 children a year die from accidental gun deaths........that is a pretty good stat considering 90 million homes have guns in them........

I would like to see the number go down.

I would like to see all child deaths go down....I am just more concerned about child death than focused just on getting guns out of the hands of Americans......

None of my suggestions would do that.

 

[NoNukes]

This thread shows that some people care more about guns than children. God bless America.

No....it shows that people aren't going to be steam rolled by paranoid anti gunners who cobble together gang shootings and other nonsense to get guns banned....

Under 100 children a year are killed by accidental gun deaths......out of a country of over 320 milion people....each one is horrible....but more children die in cars....spend your time saving those lives......

The car comparison is ridiculous. Society is set up that people need cars for a mode of transportation.

Then why do the anti gun groups keep using it.....again...I bring it up only because they bring it up so often.....and then they get mad when I do it because I show there numbers don't hold up.....

which groups bring it up, and how do they present it?

Just about every current major anti gun group....

Guns vs. Cars Comparison Is No Accident The Daily Caller

To feign strength, gun control supporters have been pedal-to-the-metal on the subject over time. The Violence Policy Center compared gun-related and vehicle accident deaths in 2011. Michael Bloomberg’s news machine did so in 2012. Mother Jones, the publication once edited by Michael Moore, if that tells you anything, did so in 2013. Last year, the Center for American Progress asserted that “gun deaths are on track to surpass motor vehicle traffic deaths for [people under age 25].” And this year, the ideologically comparable Atlantic repeated that assertion in a hit piece that referred to guns as “America’s Top Killing Machine.”

The Daily Caller???? Man, you had to do some digging to find that one.

 

[dannyboys]

108K would make it 480:1. I'm saying 30:1 would be a reasonable point at which to consider guns not worth the risk, so you still need to make up a factor of 16 somewhere.

What am I making up a factor of 16 for? I'm not suggesting banning guns.

Are you counting all the crimes committed with guns? We only have 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are a minority. The most lives saved possible is under 10k.

Technically, the upper limit on lives saved per year is the number of self-defense uses against violent crimes per year, wherein we assume that every thwarted violent offense would lead to a death. Obviously that's not realistic, but that's the hard upper limit.

You've cited 75 accidental shootings in the first four months of 2015, roughly a third of which were fatal. Extrapolated to the whole of 2015, that's 225 shootings per year, 78 of which are fatal. I'm comparing this number (255) to the average yearly number of thwarted violent offenses, which you're claiming is 108,000, and that yields a ratio of 1:480.

As far as I'm concerned, the certain harm caused by one accidental shooting is preferable to the harm that would potentially be caused by 30 violent crimes. Hence my "cutoff" is 1:30. The actual ratio, 1:480 is therefore too high by a factor of 480/30 = 16. If you wanted to make the argument that banning guns would reduce harm (which up until now I thought was the point you were arguing) you would need to make up--meaning "find other factors to account for"--this remaining factor of 16.

If you're not interested in banning guns or discouraging Americans from owning them, you can ignore all of the above. But in that case, I don't know what point you're trying to make in this thread. In my experience, people only post about gun tragedies when they're making a case for stricter gun control.

These are just those involving children. There are about 500 accidental deaths each year total. And again there are 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are about 40% of the population so the most lives they could possibly be saving is 4000. And the number is certainly less than that as many armed defenders are themselves killed. Meanwhile about 8500 of the homicides are with guns.

The point was to draw attention to the issue and offer suggestions to save lives. Banning guns is not the only thing that can be done. If guns are stored properly kids can't get them.

Actually brain, in 2013 there were 8,454 gun murders...which is going down......and no matter how well you store guns, alcohol, drug abuse and criminals in the home will lead to children accidentally finding guns......

And in a country of over 320 million people....under 100 children a year die from accidental gun deaths........that is a pretty good stat considering 90 million homes have guns in them........

I would like to see the number go down.

Then go into every negro shithole and take the fucking illegal hand guns away from them.
Problem solved asshole!
Frankly most of them are too stupid to understand how to load them. They buy them off the street fully loaded and when they fire off the loads they sell the fucking gun to a twelve year old for twenty bucks then buy another fully loaded stolen handgun.

 

[Brain357]

What am I making up a factor of 16 for? I'm not suggesting banning guns.

Are you counting all the crimes committed with guns? We only have 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are a minority. The most lives saved possible is under 10k.

Technically, the upper limit on lives saved per year is the number of self-defense uses against violent crimes per year, wherein we assume that every thwarted violent offense would lead to a death. Obviously that's not realistic, but that's the hard upper limit.

You've cited 75 accidental shootings in the first four months of 2015, roughly a third of which were fatal. Extrapolated to the whole of 2015, that's 225 shootings per year, 78 of which are fatal. I'm comparing this number (255) to the average yearly number of thwarted violent offenses, which you're claiming is 108,000, and that yields a ratio of 1:480.

As far as I'm concerned, the certain harm caused by one accidental shooting is preferable to the harm that would potentially be caused by 30 violent crimes. Hence my "cutoff" is 1:30. The actual ratio, 1:480 is therefore too high by a factor of 480/30 = 16. If you wanted to make the argument that banning guns would reduce harm (which up until now I thought was the point you were arguing) you would need to make up--meaning "find other factors to account for"--this remaining factor of 16.

If you're not interested in banning guns or discouraging Americans from owning them, you can ignore all of the above. But in that case, I don't know what point you're trying to make in this thread. In my experience, people only post about gun tragedies when they're making a case for stricter gun control.

These are just those involving children. There are about 500 accidental deaths each year total. And again there are 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are about 40% of the population so the most lives they could possibly be saving is 4000. And the number is certainly less than that as many armed defenders are themselves killed. Meanwhile about 8500 of the homicides are with guns.

The point was to draw attention to the issue and offer suggestions to save lives. Banning guns is not the only thing that can be done. If guns are stored properly kids can't get them.

Actually brain, in 2013 there were 8,454 gun murders...which is going down......and no matter how well you store guns, alcohol, drug abuse and criminals in the home will lead to children accidentally finding guns......

And in a country of over 320 million people....under 100 children a year die from accidental gun deaths........that is a pretty good stat considering 90 million homes have guns in them........

I would like to see the number go down.

Then go into every negro shithole and take the fucking illegal hand guns away from them.
Problem solved asshole!
Frankly most of them are too stupid to understand how to load them. They buy them off the street fully loaded and when they fire off the loads they sell the fucking gun to a twelve year old for twenty bucks then buy another fully loaded stolen handgun.

You talk a lot without coming close to an intelligent thought. Bravo.

 

[Brain357]

No....it shows that people aren't going to be steam rolled by paranoid anti gunners who cobble together gang shootings and other nonsense to get guns banned....

Under 100 children a year are killed by accidental gun deaths......out of a country of over 320 milion people....each one is horrible....but more children die in cars....spend your time saving those lives......

The car comparison is ridiculous. Society is set up that people need cars for a mode of transportation.

Then why do the anti gun groups keep using it.....again...I bring it up only because they bring it up so often.....and then they get mad when I do it because I show there numbers don't hold up.....

which groups bring it up, and how do they present it?

Just about every current major anti gun group....

Guns vs. Cars Comparison Is No Accident The Daily Caller

To feign strength, gun control supporters have been pedal-to-the-metal on the subject over time. The Violence Policy Center compared gun-related and vehicle accident deaths in 2011. Michael Bloomberg’s news machine did so in 2012. Mother Jones, the publication once edited by Michael Moore, if that tells you anything, did so in 2013. Last year, the Center for American Progress asserted that “gun deaths are on track to surpass motor vehicle traffic deaths for [people under age 25].” And this year, the ideologically comparable Atlantic repeated that assertion in a hit piece that referred to guns as “America’s Top Killing Machine.”

The Daily Caller???? Man, you had to do some digging to find that one.

I've never heard of it.

 

[2aguy]

No....it shows that people aren't going to be steam rolled by paranoid anti gunners who cobble together gang shootings and other nonsense to get guns banned....

Under 100 children a year are killed by accidental gun deaths......out of a country of over 320 milion people....each one is horrible....but more children die in cars....spend your time saving those lives......

The car comparison is ridiculous. Society is set up that people need cars for a mode of transportation.

Then why do the anti gun groups keep using it.....again...I bring it up only because they bring it up so often.....and then they get mad when I do it because I show there numbers don't hold up.....

which groups bring it up, and how do they present it?

Just about every current major anti gun group....

Guns vs. Cars Comparison Is No Accident The Daily Caller

To feign strength, gun control supporters have been pedal-to-the-metal on the subject over time. The Violence Policy Center compared gun-related and vehicle accident deaths in 2011. Michael Bloomberg’s news machine did so in 2012. Mother Jones, the publication once edited by Michael Moore, if that tells you anything, did so in 2013. Last year, the Center for American Progress asserted that “gun deaths are on track to surpass motor vehicle traffic deaths for [people under age 25].” And this year, the ideologically comparable Atlantic repeated that assertion in a hit piece that referred to guns as “America’s Top Killing Machine.”

The Daily Caller???? Man, you had to do some digging to find that one.

Did the gun control groups mentioned compare guns vs. cars? That is the only relevant question you need to answer...and they actually link to each one......did you read the quote...or just react from emotion......?

I clicked on the actual link in the quote and the Violence Policy Center compared the death rates, but I can't copy it...you'll actually have to go there...

Here is bloomberg...

American Gun Deaths to Exceed Traffic Fatalities by 2015 - Bloomberg Business

Mother Jones makes the comparison from the quote and link from the daily caller....

MAP Which Kills More People in Your State Cars or Guns Mother Jones

You have to go to page 5 of the American Progress link to get the comparison...

MAP Which Kills More People in Your State Cars or Guns Mother Jones

The Atlantic wouldn't send me through...so you'll have to do that work yourself...


So....did you read the quote or react from emotion? And misinformation and bias against the Daily Caller?

Next time read the quote....it will help educate you to the truth......

 

[2aguy]

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.

How helpful, then, that the Justice Department asked the National Research Council (part of the National Academies, which also includes the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine) to study how successfully the federal government measures rape. The answer has just arrived, in a report out Tuesday with the headline from the press release: “The National Crime Victimization Survey Is Likely Undercounting Rape and Sexual Assault.” We’re not talking about small fractions—we’re talking about the kind of potentially massive underestimate that the military and the Justice Department have warned about for years—and that could be throwing a wrench into the effort to do the most effective type of rape prevention.....

But here are the flaws that call the nice-sounding stats into doubt: The NCVS is designed to measure all kinds of crime victimization. The questions it poses about sexual violence are embedded among questions that ask about lots of other types of crime. For example:

So......the NCVS can't get an accurate account of what it is researching....how do we know this...the numbers are off...

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 FBI, which collects its data from local law enforcement, and so only counts rapes and attempted rapes that have been reported as crimes, totaled only 85,593 for 2010.

So no....the NCVS is not a tool to understand the use of guns for self defense..........

 

[2aguy]

Hmmmmm...does this sound familiar......the NCVS is off...by a lot....compared to an actual study of sexual assault...the same way it is off compared to actual studies of defensive gun use....

By how much....ohhhhhhh, by quite a bit.....

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.

So again....the NCVS is not a gun study....and any attempt to use it to prove anything about defensive gun use is foolish.....

 

[Brain357]

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.

How helpful, then, that the Justice Department asked the National Research Council (part of the National Academies, which also includes the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine) to study how successfully the federal government measures rape. The answer has just arrived, in a report out Tuesday with the headline from the press release: “The National Crime Victimization Survey Is Likely Undercounting Rape and Sexual Assault.” We’re not talking about small fractions—we’re talking about the kind of potentially massive underestimate that the military and the Justice Department have warned about for years—and that could be throwing a wrench into the effort to do the most effective type of rape prevention.....

But here are the flaws that call the nice-sounding stats into doubt: The NCVS is designed to measure all kinds of crime victimization. The questions it poses about sexual violence are embedded among questions that ask about lots of other types of crime. For example:

So......the NCVS can't get an accurate account of what it is researching....how do we know this...the numbers are off...

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 FBI, which collects its data from local law enforcement, and so only counts rapes and attempted rapes that have been reported as crimes, totaled only 85,593 for 2010.

So no....the NCVS is not a tool to understand the use of guns for self defense..........

The two aren't related. Rape and sexual violence is under reported due to the victims. Gun nuts love talking about DGUs however. Many people this board make them up even.

Your gun studies are obviously not accurate. You have 16 that all disagree ranging from 500k-3.6 million. If it was an accurate way of calculating DGUs they would arrive at similar numbers. Your own studies prove they are not accurate.

 

[2aguy]

...

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)....

I have to admit, even if we take a low-end estimate of 800,000 violent crimes prevented (this number still seems really high to me, but supposing it's legitimate) we're looking at ~3,500 violent crimes prevented by civilians per accidental child shooting in 2015 (the projected total number of shootings, going by the numbers in the OP).

I'll just say that if we trust both numbers to be even remotely accurate, I don't see how anyone can reasonably stack 3,500 against 1 and come out with a "not worth the risk" assessment. Maybe 30:1 I could see tipping the scales, but we're more than two orders of magnitude away from that.

Having said this, the US does have ridiculously high crime rates by OECD standards, and it's not folly to hypothesize that at least some of the difference is attributable to US citizenry being armed to the teeth. I emphasize 'some'. Americans are inherently more violent and rebellious than most western nations--it just seems to be part of your culture, guns or not--and you have a particularly stark divide between the haves and the have-nots, with a sprawling underclass. Suffice it to say I could believe that guns are a symptom rather than a cause of elevated rates of violent crime in America.

Keep in mind all 800k wouldn't be violent crimes. Most would be property crimes. And the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity. The 108k estimate by the ncvs is far more accurate.

108K would make it 480:1. I'm saying 30:1 would be a reasonable point at which to consider guns not worth the risk, so you still need to make up a factor of 16 somewhere.

What am I making up a factor of 16 for? I'm not suggesting banning guns.

Are you counting all the crimes committed with guns? We only have 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are a minority. The most lives saved possible is under 10k.

Technically, the upper limit on lives saved per year is the number of self-defense uses against violent crimes per year, wherein we assume that every thwarted violent offense would lead to a death. Obviously that's not realistic, but that's the hard upper limit.

You've cited 75 accidental shootings in the first four months of 2015, roughly a third of which were fatal. Extrapolated to the whole of 2015, that's 225 shootings per year, 78 of which are fatal. I'm comparing this number (255) to the average yearly number of thwarted violent offenses, which you're claiming is 108,000, and that yields a ratio of 1:480.

As far as I'm concerned, the certain harm caused by one accidental shooting is preferable to the harm that would potentially be caused by 30 violent crimes. Hence my "cutoff" is 1:30. The actual ratio, 1:480 is therefore too high by a factor of 480/30 = 16. If you wanted to make the argument that banning guns would reduce harm (which up until now I thought was the point you were arguing) you would need to make up--meaning "find other factors to account for"--this remaining factor of 16.

If you're not interested in banning guns or discouraging Americans from owning them, you can ignore all of the above. But in that case, I don't know what point you're trying to make in this thread. In my experience, people only post about gun tragedies when they're making a case for stricter gun control.

For your consideration on the accuracy of the NCVS.....

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.

How helpful, then, that the Justice Department asked the National Research Council (part of the National Academies, which also includes the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine) to study how successfully the federal government measures rape. The answer has just arrived, in a report out Tuesday with the headline from the press release: “The National Crime Victimization Survey Is Likely Undercounting Rape and Sexual Assault.” We’re not talking about small fractions—we’re talking about the kind of potentially massive underestimate that the military and the Justice Department have warned about for years—and that could be throwing a wrench into the effort to do the most effective type of rape prevention.....

But here are the flaws that call the nice-sounding stats into doubt: The NCVS is designed to measure all kinds of crime victimization. The questions it poses about sexual violence are embedded among questions that ask about lots of other types of crime. For example:

So......the NCVS can't get an accurate account of what it is researching....how do we know this...the numbers are off...

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 FBI, which collects its data from local law enforcement, and so only counts rapes and attempted rapes that have been reported as crimes, totaled only 85,593 for 2010.

So no....the NCVS is not a tool to understand the use of guns for self defense..........

Now the NCVS specifically studies sexual assault....and it gets it wrong this much....

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.

So imagine how off the NCVS methods are when it doesn't even claim to study self defense with a gun..........

 

[2aguy]

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.

How helpful, then, that the Justice Department asked the National Research Council (part of the National Academies, which also includes the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine) to study how successfully the federal government measures rape. The answer has just arrived, in a report out Tuesday with the headline from the press release: “The National Crime Victimization Survey Is Likely Undercounting Rape and Sexual Assault.” We’re not talking about small fractions—we’re talking about the kind of potentially massive underestimate that the military and the Justice Department have warned about for years—and that could be throwing a wrench into the effort to do the most effective type of rape prevention.....

But here are the flaws that call the nice-sounding stats into doubt: The NCVS is designed to measure all kinds of crime victimization. The questions it poses about sexual violence are embedded among questions that ask about lots of other types of crime. For example:

So......the NCVS can't get an accurate account of what it is researching....how do we know this...the numbers are off...

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 FBI, which collects its data from local law enforcement, and so only counts rapes and attempted rapes that have been reported as crimes, totaled only 85,593 for 2010.

So no....the NCVS is not a tool to understand the use of guns for self defense..........

The two aren't related. Rape and sexual violence is under reported due to the victims. Gun nuts love talking about DGUs however. Many people this board make them up even.

Your gun studies are obviously not accurate. You have 16 that all disagree ranging from 500k-3.6 million. If it was an accurate way of calculating DGUs they would arrive at similar numbers. Your own studies prove they are not accurate.

Brain.....you are looking more foolish than you usually do.........The NCVS actually studies rape and sexual assault.....and gets it wrong....they don't study guns....and get it even more wrong....

 

[Brain357]

I have to admit, even if we take a low-end estimate of 800,000 violent crimes prevented (this number still seems really high to me, but supposing it's legitimate) we're looking at ~3,500 violent crimes prevented by civilians per accidental child shooting in 2015 (the projected total number of shootings, going by the numbers in the OP).

I'll just say that if we trust both numbers to be even remotely accurate, I don't see how anyone can reasonably stack 3,500 against 1 and come out with a "not worth the risk" assessment. Maybe 30:1 I could see tipping the scales, but we're more than two orders of magnitude away from that.

Having said this, the US does have ridiculously high crime rates by OECD standards, and it's not folly to hypothesize that at least some of the difference is attributable to US citizenry being armed to the teeth. I emphasize 'some'. Americans are inherently more violent and rebellious than most western nations--it just seems to be part of your culture, guns or not--and you have a particularly stark divide between the haves and the have-nots, with a sprawling underclass. Suffice it to say I could believe that guns are a symptom rather than a cause of elevated rates of violent crime in America.

Keep in mind all 800k wouldn't be violent crimes. Most would be property crimes. And the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity. The 108k estimate by the ncvs is far more accurate.

108K would make it 480:1. I'm saying 30:1 would be a reasonable point at which to consider guns not worth the risk, so you still need to make up a factor of 16 somewhere.

What am I making up a factor of 16 for? I'm not suggesting banning guns.

Are you counting all the crimes committed with guns? We only have 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are a minority. The most lives saved possible is under 10k.

Technically, the upper limit on lives saved per year is the number of self-defense uses against violent crimes per year, wherein we assume that every thwarted violent offense would lead to a death. Obviously that's not realistic, but that's the hard upper limit.

You've cited 75 accidental shootings in the first four months of 2015, roughly a third of which were fatal. Extrapolated to the whole of 2015, that's 225 shootings per year, 78 of which are fatal. I'm comparing this number (255) to the average yearly number of thwarted violent offenses, which you're claiming is 108,000, and that yields a ratio of 1:480.

As far as I'm concerned, the certain harm caused by one accidental shooting is preferable to the harm that would potentially be caused by 30 violent crimes. Hence my "cutoff" is 1:30. The actual ratio, 1:480 is therefore too high by a factor of 480/30 = 16. If you wanted to make the argument that banning guns would reduce harm (which up until now I thought was the point you were arguing) you would need to make up--meaning "find other factors to account for"--this remaining factor of 16.

If you're not interested in banning guns or discouraging Americans from owning them, you can ignore all of the above. But in that case, I don't know what point you're trying to make in this thread. In my experience, people only post about gun tragedies when they're making a case for stricter gun control.

For your consideration on the accuracy of the NCVS.....

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.

How helpful, then, that the Justice Department asked the National Research Council (part of the National Academies, which also includes the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine) to study how successfully the federal government measures rape. The answer has just arrived, in a report out Tuesday with the headline from the press release: “The National Crime Victimization Survey Is Likely Undercounting Rape and Sexual Assault.” We’re not talking about small fractions—we’re talking about the kind of potentially massive underestimate that the military and the Justice Department have warned about for years—and that could be throwing a wrench into the effort to do the most effective type of rape prevention.....

But here are the flaws that call the nice-sounding stats into doubt: The NCVS is designed to measure all kinds of crime victimization. The questions it poses about sexual violence are embedded among questions that ask about lots of other types of crime. For example:

So......the NCVS can't get an accurate account of what it is researching....how do we know this...the numbers are off...

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 FBI, which collects its data from local law enforcement, and so only counts rapes and attempted rapes that have been reported as crimes, totaled only 85,593 for 2010.

So no....the NCVS is not a tool to understand the use of guns for self defense..........

Now the NCVS specifically studies sexual assault....and it gets it wrong this much....

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.

So imagine how off the NCVS methods are when it doesn't even claim to study self defense with a gun..........

Unrelated. Victims often don't like reporting rapes. Gun nuts love talking about DGUs.