Defensive use of guns.

[2aguy]

You have proven you statement to your satisfaction. All you need to do.

Its not for him....it is for the casual passerby....who normally only get gun control talking points in all of their media, movies and television shows....

 

[Vagabond63]

Americans use their guns 1.2 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies, murders, mass public shootings, stabbings and beatings.......according to the CDC....or 1.5 million times according to the Department of Justice...

According to Kleck, not the CDC. Oh, can you provide a link to the Department of Justice "study"? Just asking on the off chance it's not another Kleck fantasy.

 

[Vagabond63]

Its not for him....it is for the casual passerby....who normally only get gun control talking points in all of their media, movies and television shows....

Yes, the "casual passerby needs your propaganda BS, more than actual facts, we've known this from the start. Thanks for finally admitting it.

 

[2aguy]

According to Kleck, not the CDC. Oh, can you provide a link to the Department of Justice "study"? Just asking on the off chance it's not another Kleck fantasy.

Yeah...I can, you doofus.....

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs.



n the third column of Table 6.2, we apply the Kleck and Gertz (1995) criteria for "genuine" DGUs (type A), leaving us with just 19 respondents. They represent 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known Kleck and Gertz estimate of 2.5 million, shown in the last

While ours is smaller, it is staistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. to the when we include the multiple DGUs victim. defensive reported by half our 19 respondents, our estimate increases to 4.7 milli

While ours is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference petrator; in most cases (69 percent), the is due to sampling error. Note that when we include the multiple DGUs reported by half our 19 respondents, our estimate increases to 4.7 million DGUs.
----

As shown in Table 6.6, the defender fired his or her gun in 27 percent of these incidents (combined "fire warning shots" and "fire at perpetrator" percentages, though some respondents reported firing both warning shots and airning at the perpetrator). Forty percent of these were "warning shots," and about a third were aimed at the perpetrator but missed. The perpetrator was wounded by the crime victim in eight percent of all DGUs. In nine percent of DGUs the victim captured and held the perpetrator at gunpoint until the police could arrive.

 

[2aguy]

Yes, the "casual passerby needs your propaganda BS, more than actual facts, we've known this from the start. Thanks for finally admitting it.

I supply research...from 18 different studies, conducted by both government and private researchers using modern research techniques...The CDC and the DOJ included...spending millions and millions of dollars to conduct the research, specifically to disprove defensive gun use.....

You?

The research isn't right........

Yeah...you really got me.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Its not for him....

But it is - those are -his- words.
When -he- needs to prove something, "to my satisfaction" is sufficient.

 

[Vagabond63]

Nope.....they did the collection of the data, then stopped and buried it....as you know.

No.....they found the data was not showing what they wanted to show, so they stopped the research and buried the data they already had....

Their job was to refute Kleck....the Clinton administration was pushing gun control and sent the CDC and the DOJ to attack Kleck...they both failed.......

Everytihing on the CDC and the way it buried data that didn't support what they wanted to push.....

Forbes, why did the CDC hide the data?

3) We don’t know why the CDC chose not to publish that data from the 1990s.

Kleck offers some ideas in his original paper. One possible explanation:


One CDC official in the 1990s openly told the Washington Post that his goal was to create a public perception of gun ownership as something “dirty, deadly — and banned.” Given that history, I can’t dismiss Kleck’s critique.

That Time The CDC Asked About Defensive Gun Uses



The Washington post column mentioned above...



"We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol -- cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly -- and banned." Rosenberg's thought is that if we could transform public attitudes toward guns the way we have transformed public attitudes toward cigarettes, we'd go a long way toward curbing our national epidemic of violence.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...th-guns/6c7f2bd2-fa57-4d69-b927-5ceb4fa43cf4/

============





Revised paper

SSRN Electronic Library

Abstract​

In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU) in four to seven states. Analysis of the raw data allows the estimation of the prevalence of DGU for those areas. Data pertaining to the same sets of states from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (Kleck and Gertz 1995) allow these results to be extrapolated to the U.S. as a whole. CDC’s survey data confirm previous high estimates of DGU prevalence, disconfirm estimates derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey, and indicate that defensive uses of guns by crime victims are far more common than offensive uses by criminals. CDC has never reported these results.

=========



Reason article on the revised paper..



in direct response to queries from Reason, who first directly notified Kleck of his error, he worked through and has since issued a revised version of the paper, published as was the original as a working paper on the Social Science Research Network. In the new version, Kleck re-analyzes the BRFSS survey data accurately as limited to a small number of states, and ultimately concludes, when their surveys are analyzed in conjunction with his NSDS, that their surveys indicate likely over 1 million defensive uses of guns (DGUs) a year nationally, compared to the over 2 million of his own NSDS.

Here's how Kleck got to that new conclusion. The BRFSS, as Kleck describes it in his paper, "are high-quality telephone surveys of very large probability samples of U.S. adults…even just the subset of four to seven state surveys that asked about DGU in 1996-1998 interviewed 3,197-4,500 adults, depending on the year. This is more people than were asked about this topic in any other surveys, other than the National Self-Defense Survey conducted in 1993 by Kleck and Gertz (1995), who asked DGU questions of 4,977 people." The BRFSS asked about defensive uses of guns in seven states in 1996, seven in 1997, and four in 1998.

Kleck judged the "wording of the DGU question in the BRFSS surveys" as "also excellent, avoiding many problems with the wording that afflicted the DGU questions used in other surveys."

The BRFSS results were designed to exclude "uses by military, police and others with firearm-related jobs" and "uses against animals." The survey was designed to garner "yes" answers as long as a gun was used in presumed self-defense in any location (not just the home), whether or not the gun was actually fired (as, per Kleck's survey, around 3/4 of the time one needn't fire the gun to have found it useful in deterring an intruder or attacker).



A Second Look at a Controversial Study About Defensive Gun Use



-------



Original version before he went back to revise it...

The actual paper by Kleck revealing the CDC hiding data..



SSRN Electronic Library

The timing of CDC’s addition of a DGU question to the BRFSS is of some interest. Prior to 1996, the BRFSS had never included a question about DGU. Kleck and Gertz (1995) conducted their survey in February through April 1993, presented their estimate that there were over 2 million DGUs in 1992 at the annual meetings of the American Society of Criminology in November 1994, and published it in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology in the Fall of 1995. CDC added a DGU question to the BRFSS the very first year they could do so after that 1995 publication, in the 1996 edition. CDC was not the only federal agency during the Clinton administration to field a survey addressing the prevalence of DGU at that particular time. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) financed a national survey devoting even more detailed attention to estimating DGU prevalence, which was fielded in November and December 1994, just months after preliminary results of the 1993 Kleck/Gertz survey became known. Neither CDC nor NIJ had ever financed research into DGU before 1996. Perhaps there was just “something in the air” that motivated the two agencies to suddenly decide in 1994 to address the topic. Another interpretation, however, is that fielding of the surveys was triggered by the Kleck/Gertz findings that DGU was common, and that these agencies hoped to obtain lower DGU prevalence estimates than those obtained by Kleck/Gertz. Low estimates would have implied fewer beneficial uses of firearms, results that would have been far more congenial to the strongly pro-control positions of the Clinton administration.


CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence That Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns



Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998.

Those polls, Kleck writes,


Kleck was impressed with how well the survey worded its question: "During the last 12 months, have you confronted another person with a firearm, even if you did not fire it, to protect yourself, your property, or someone else?" Respondents were told to leave out incidents from occupations, like policing, where using firearms is part of the job. Kleck is impressed with how the question excludes animals but includes DGUs outside the home as well as within it.

Kleck is less impressed with the fact that the question was only asked of people who admitted to owning guns in their home earlier in the survey, and that they asked no follow-up questions regarding the specific nature of the DGU incident.

From Kleck's own surveys, he found that only 79 percent of those who reported a DGU "had also reported a gun in their household at the time of the interview," so he thinks whatever numbers the CDC found need to be revised upward to account for that. (Kleck speculates that CDC showed a sudden interest in the question of DGUs starting in 1996 because Kleck's own famous/notorious survey had been published in 1995.)

At any rate, Kleck downloaded the datasets for those three years and found that the "weighted percent who reported a DGU...was 1.3% in 1996, 0.9% in 1997, 1.0% in 1998, and 1.07% in all three surveys combined."





Kleck figures if you do the adjustment upward he thinks necessary for those who had DGU incidents without personally owning a gun in the home at the time of the survey, and then the adjustment downward he thinks necessary because CDC didn't do detailed follow-ups to confirm the nature of the incident, you get 1.24 percent, a close match to his own 1.326 percent figure.

He concludes that the small difference between his estimate and the CDC's "can be attributed to declining rates of violent crime, which accounts for most DGUs. With fewer occasions for self-defense in the form of violent victimizations, one would expect fewer DGUs."

Kleck further details how much these CDC surveys confirmed his own controversial work:




And the collection of 18 studies that also researched defensive gun use....over and above the CDC research....



A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

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, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)


2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

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

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

2021 national firearms survey..

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey

Oh, look, now Kleck claims 1.1 million from the CDC. He can't even be consistent!

 

[2aguy]

According to Kleck, not the CDC. Oh, can you provide a link to the Department of Justice "study"? Just asking on the off chance it's not another Kleck fantasy.

Here is another one...

President Obama also wanted to do gun control...but after the democrats lost their 40 year control of Congress due to, in part, their assault rifle ban, he had to kick start new gun control...

The first thing he did was sell guns to Mexican Drug cartels in Operation Fast and Furious....in order to have American guns show up at Drug Cartel crime scenes...but he and Eric Holder, the Attorney General were caught and exposed.....and had to stop....

The next thing he did was order his Centers For Disease Control to look at all gun research.....they spent 10 million dollars in 2013 to do this....

What did they find....between 500,000 and 3 million defensive gun uses each year....

Here is that research...

Defensive Use of Guns

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a).

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).


National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence |The National Academies Press.

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence |The National Academies Press

Read chapter Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence: In 2010, more than 105,000 people were injured or killed in the Uni...

nap.nationalacademies.org

 

[2aguy]

Oh, look, now Kleck claims 1.1 million from the CDC. He can't even be consistent!

Is that all you have? Really? 18 actual studies and you fart that out?



The inbreeding on your island is obviously getting worse.....

 

[Vagabond63]

I supply research...

NO, you regurgitate glorified opinion poll projections as hard fact. NONE of those studies claim hard numbers, uses of words like "implied", "estimated" "suggested", etc. are hardly factual. All they are is best guesses.

 

[2aguy]

NO, you regurgitate glorified opinion poll projections as hard fact. NONE of those studies claim hard numbers, uses of words like "implied", "estimated" "suggested", etc. are hardly factual. All they are is best guesses.

Tell us again that the Centers for Disease Control and the Department of Justice don't know how to do research...please...tell us again.....

Then add in all the other anti-gun researchers from the other 16 studies, including Kleck, who was anti-gun when he did his research, and tell us again how they all got it wrong, and only you know the truth......

Please...tell us...

 

[Vagabond63]

Tell us again that the Centers for Disease Control and the Department of Justice don't know how to do research...please...tell us again.....

Then add in all the other anti-gun researchers from the other 16 studies, including Kleck, who was anti-gun when he did his research, and tell us again how they all got it wrong, and only you know the truth......

Please...tell us...

NONE of these studies claim hard facts, they are all basically best guesses based on limited samples. That IS a fact.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Correct, by reason and by logic, the gun culture is dreadful in America. Anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size knows that to have to safe guns, you needs regulations that are found in Europe, UK, New Zealand and Australia. But because that's so blatant, the only defence against common sense is, "2nd Amendment", mouth froth, "Constitution".

You guys need a bit of paper to fight against logic and a safe gun culture. Simple as.

The people of the UK, New Zealand, and Australia never had a Constitutional right to own firearms and still practice a medieval form of Government. I don't give a fuck what they do.

 

[Blues Man]

So in that case most "normal, law abiding" Americans don't need guns for self defence. You've destroyed your argument again.

Most people never have their house burn down so I guess they don't need homeowners' insurance. Most people never get into car accidents so I guess they don;t need car insurance

A gun is nothing but insurance. You have it and you hope you never have to use it.

it only takes one time to die at the hands of a criminal. You may be lucky enough not to have been the victim of a violent crime so you choose to live in ignorant bliss. Those of us that have been victims of violent crimes know better

 

[2aguy]

NONE of these studies claim hard facts, they are all basically best guesses based on limited samples. That IS a fact.

Over 5,000 interviews is not a limited sample...you doofus...that is a huge sample compared to any other study....

You moron...


What is the ideal sample size in qualitative research?


We’ll answer it this time. Based on studies that have been done in academia on this very issue, 30 seems to be an ideal sample size for the most comprehensive view, but studies can have as little as 10 total participants and still yield extremely fruitful, and applicable, results. (This goes back to excellence in recruiting.)

Our general recommendation for in-depth interviews is a sample size of 30, if we’re building a study that includes similar segments within the population. A minimum size can be 10 – but again, this assumes the population integrity in recruiting.

What is the ideal Sample Size in Qualitative Research? — Greenbook

Let’s explore the whole issue of panel size and what you should be looking for from participant panels when conducing qualitative research.

www.greenbook.org

For example, Green and Thorogood [38] maintain that the experience of most qualitative researchers conducting an interview-based study with a fairly specific research question is that little new information is generated after interviewing 20 people or so belonging to one analytically relevant participant ‘category’ (pp. 102–104). Ritchie et al. [39] suggest that studies employing individual interviews conduct no more than 50 interviews so that researchers are able to manage the complexity of the analytic task. Similarly, Britten [40] notes that large interview studies will often comprise of 50 to 60 people.

Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period - BMC Medical Research Methodology

Background Choosing a suitable sample size in qualitative research is an area of conceptual debate and practical uncertainty. That sample size principles, guidelines and tools have been developed to enable researchers to set, and justify the acceptability of, their sample size is an indication...

bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com

Remember....Kleck used 5,000 interviews....

Based on these estimates, assuming that the authors intended to test all of these associations, it would be necessary to choose the largest estimated sample size (2,630 subjects).

In case the required sample size is larger than the target population, the investigators may decide to perform a multicenter study, lengthen the period for data collection, modify the research question or face the possibility of not having sufficient power to draw valid conclusions.

Sample size: how many participants do I need in my research?

The importance of estimating sample sizes is rarely understood by researchers, when planning a study. This paper aims to highlight the centrality of sample size estimations in health research. Examples that help in understanding the basic concepts involved ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Vagabond63]

Most people never have their house burn down so I guess they don't need homeowners' insurance. Most people never get into car accidents so I guess they don;t need car insurance

A gun is nothing but insurance. You have it and you hope you never have to use it.

it only takes one time to die at the hands of a criminal. You may be lucky enough not to have been the victim of a violent crime so you choose to live in ignorant bliss. Those of us that have been victims of violent crimes know better

Wow, I might be struck by lightning, so I'd best carry a lightning rod around with me, just in case! I've no problem with people owning guns, for sport, or even self defence, if your society is that barbaric. However all societies need to control who has access to firearms. Anyone who wants to have a gun needs to be properly trained, have thorough background checks including mental health and the weapons need to be stored safely when not needed. You need a licence to drive, you should have a license to own a firearm.

 

[Vagabond63]

Tell us again that the Centers for Disease Control and the Department of Justice don't know how to do research...please...tell us again.....

Then add in all the other anti-gun researchers from the other 16 studies, including Kleck, who was anti-gun when he did his research, and tell us again how they all got it wrong, and only you know the truth......

Please...tell us...

Oh dear... If you bothered to actually read any of these studies, rather than just regurgitate numbers, you might learn that in every case each study states the figures are estimates (aka best guesses) None of these studies claim their numbers are holy writ. All acknowledge that there are inherent errors and that more research is needed to get more accurate information.

 

[WTF19]

• In 2017, the FBI reports there were only 298 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm. That same year, there were 10,380 criminal gun homicides. Guns were used in 35 criminal homicides for every justifiable homicide.
• Intended victims of violent crimes engaged in self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 1.1 percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014 and 2016.
• Intended victims of property crimes engaged in self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 0.3 percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014 and 2016.

When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.

https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/self-defense-gun-use/

You think I would go to a conservative site, not on your life.

IF YOU ONLY HAD A BRAIN

 

[WTF19]

s

Oh dear... If you bothered to actually read any of these studies, rather than just regurgitate numbers, you might learn that in every case each study states the figures are estimates (aka best guesses) None of these studies claim their numbers are holy writ. All acknowledge that there are inherent errors and that more research is needed to get more accurate information.

so, you regurgitate a bunch of IFS--or just plain old lies---or best guesses----WTF are you spewing

IF YOU ONLY HAD A BRAIN

 

[2aguy]

Wow, I might be struck by lightning, so I'd best carry a lightning rod around with me, just in case! I've no problem with people owning guns, for sport, or even self defence, if your society is that barbaric. However all societies need to control who has access to firearms. Anyone who wants to have a gun needs to be properly trained, have thorough background checks including mental health and the weapons need to be stored safely when not needed. You need a licence to drive, you should have a license to own a firearm.

Guns are not hard to use. As we see in Britain and the rest of Europe, training requirements are simply a way to deny gun ownership and carry Rights for normal people, limiting gun ownership to the wealthy, famous and politically connected……so screw that.