Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
No, I am commenting on the belief that gun control laws work.....we on the pro 2nd amendment side have always pointed out, that if you ban guns....law abiding citizens will obey that law, and the criminals won't......so all you are doing is disarming law abiding people who won't kill other innocent people....
Canada, Australia, and France have shown this to be true....
You have convicted terrorists on French watch lists who were able to get military grade Russian rifles and a rocket propelled grenade, when they wanted them.....
Not one innocent, law abiding French citizen had a gun, that is 27 people during the attack on the magazine, and all the bystanders then and this shooting......so gun control has worked as we said it would....
Don't tell me that they have less gun murders because criminals can't get guns.....they have less gun murders because their criminals have decided not to do them.....it seems like the terrorists have just decided to start doing it....
Also....keep in mind another thread.....Puerto Rico....and island nation....has the strictest control in the United States.....and they have the highest gun murder rate in the world....
Gun control guarantees that good people will be helpless against armed criminals who work alone or in groups....
Gun control= sitting ducks. No thanks!!!!!!! If I am being shot out or threatened, I want at least to have the equal of my perpetrator. I will already be at a disadvantage because of their surprise attack. I would vote for open carry laws, as unpopular as that sounds. It has come to this.
And well Kleck makes it clear the majority of them involve criminal activity by the defender.
Brain.....that is a lie....Kleck said no such thing.....that is beneath you.....
We know there are only 230 or so criminals killed in defense each year
Not true either, as that paper showed....the prosecutors and police and the FBI do not coordinate homicides to the degree of accuracy where you can make that statement...also, as has been stated before....law abiding citizens do not shoot people that they don't need to shoot.....and criminals don't press the attack and more often than not run away rather than get shot......
and again.....the 19 studies done over a 40 year period, by different researchers both private and government when averaged together show that there are 1.6 million times a gun is used to stop a violent attack and save a life......
I'll post it again, it is your quote. No lie.
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
So yes most DGUs are by criminals. No other way to translate that Bill. I know you don't like it, but that's what he said and you obviously think he knows everything.
Is that the Cato paper? The right wing obviously very slanted Cato paper? Or one of your other very pro gun links? Sorry I'll go with the FBI numbers.
The 1.6 number has been debunked many times. And Kleck has clearly stated that is mostly criminals defending themselves. So what value is it?
Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.
The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.
And well Kleck makes it clear the majority of them involve criminal activity by the defender.
Brain.....that is a lie....Kleck said no such thing.....that is beneath you.....
We know there are only 230 or so criminals killed in defense each year
Not true either, as that paper showed....the prosecutors and police and the FBI do not coordinate homicides to the degree of accuracy where you can make that statement...also, as has been stated before....law abiding citizens do not shoot people that they don't need to shoot.....and criminals don't press the attack and more often than not run away rather than get shot......
and again.....the 19 studies done over a 40 year period, by different researchers both private and government when averaged together show that there are 1.6 million times a gun is used to stop a violent attack and save a life......
I'll post it again, it is your quote. No lie.
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
So yes most DGUs are by criminals. No other way to translate that Bill. I know you don't like it, but that's what he said and you obviously think he knows everything.
Is that the Cato paper? The right wing obviously very slanted Cato paper? Or one of your other very pro gun links? Sorry I'll go with the FBI numbers.
The 1.6 number has been debunked many times. And Kleck has clearly stated that is mostly criminals defending themselves. So what value is it?
Brain....he never said it was criminals defending themselves.....you guys can't defeat the number so now you resort to lying about them....the 1.6 has not been debunked and a normal person carrying a gun for protection is not a criminal....definitions actually matter...and the Cato paper does what "The Armed Citizen" review that you use does...but they use 5000 stories from news sources all around the country....you cite "The Armed Citizen" breakdown as if it has scientific value.....so that means you also trust the Cato review....as to FBI homicide numbers....they don't count all homicides...as the CAto paper pointed out....
Again....someone who draws a weapon and scares off a criminal can be arrested for "brandishing" and until he goes to court, explains what he did and why he did it......he is a criminal......and then he is found innocent....and he isn't a criminal anymore.......definitions actually matter....
The Iowa man who was arrested for shooting a man....he spent 90 days in jail....went through a trial....was found not guilty...because the guy he shot and his two friends attacked the victim.....but until it goes through the system...he is charged with attempted murder......
the guy whose SUV was attacked by the mob in Ferguson....he drew his weapon and his cell phone, as they were trying to break into his vehicle....one of the mob called the cops, and he was arrested......for brandishing a weapon.....until he has his day in court...he is considered a criminal
and this shows why a gun owner, who scares off a criminal, but no shots are fired and no one is injured, may not tell the police....because they can be charged with any number of crimes and have to go to court to prove just cause....
You guys are typical libs.......
And Kleck actually said this......
Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.
The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.
SCHULMAN: And it excludes all police, security guards, and military personnel?
KLECK: That's correct.
SCHULMAN: Let's break down some of these gun defenses if we can. How many are against armed robbers? How many are against burglars? How many are against people committing a rape or an assault?
KLECK: About 8 percent of the defensive uses involved a sexual crime such as an attempted sexual assault. About 29 percent involved some sort of assault other than sexual assault. Thirty-three percent involved a burglary or some other theft at home. Twenty-two percent involved robbery. Sixteen percent involved trespassing. Note that some incidents could involve more than one crime.
SCHULMAN: Why is it that the results of your survey are so counter-intuitive compared to police experience?
KLECK: For starters, there are substantial reasons for people not to report defensive gun uses to the police or, for that matter, even to interviewers working for researchers like me -- the reason simply being that a lot of the times people either don't know whether their defensive act was legal or even if they think that was legal, they're not sure that possessing a gun at that particular place and time was legal. They may have a gun that's supposed to be registered and it's not or maybe it's totally legally owned but they're not supposed to be walking around on the streets with it.
SCHULMAN: Did your survey ask the question of whether people carrying guns had licenses to do so?
KLECK: No, we did not. We thought that would be way too sensitive a question to ask people.
SCHULMAN: Okay. Let's talk about how the guns were actually used in order to accomplish the defense. How many people, for example, had to merely show the gun, as opposed to how many had to fire a warning shot, as to how many actually had to attempt to shoot or shoot their attacker?
KLECK: We got all of the details about everything that people could have done with a gun from as mild an action as merely verbally referring to the gun on up to actually shooting somebody.
SCHULMAN: Could you give me the percentages?
KLECK: Yes. You have to keep in mind that it's quite possible for people to have done more than one of these things since they could obviously both verbally refer to the gun and point it at somebody or even shoot it.
SCHULMAN: Okay.
KLECK: Fifty-four percent of the defensive gun uses involved somebody verbally referring to the gun.
Forty-seven percent involved the gun being pointed at the criminal. Twenty-two percent involved the gun being fired.
Fourteen percent involved the gun being fired at somebody, meaning it wasn't just a warning shot; the defender was trying to shoot the criminal. Whether they succeeded or not is another matter but they were trying to shoot a criminal.
And then in 8 percent they actually did wound or kill the offender.
And Kleck actually said this......
Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.
The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.
Here is a good read:
What if some people lie to the NCVS and some to Kleck 8211 Deltoid
To determine where it lies we need to know the relative likelihoods of
false positives and false negatives. If they are equal (that is, the
percentage of non-(gun defenders) who claim to use a gun to Kleck is
the same as the percentage of gun-defenders who claim not to have used
one to the NCVS) we can solve some equations to find the true
estimate: Letting l be the fraction who lie, and d be the true
estimate we have:
d*l = d – 80,000 (The fraction of gun defenders who lie is the
discrepancy between the NCVS estimate and the true figure.)
(250M-d)*l = 2.5M – d (The fraction of non-(gun defenders) who lie is
the discrepancy between the Kleck estimate and the true figure.)
Solving for d:
d = 80,000 /(1 – (2.5M – 80,000)/250M)
= 81,000
Under this assumption, respondents to the NCVS and to Kleck are both
99% truthful.
------------------------The NCVS, Kleck argues, though based upon a much larger sample than his own survey, severely undercounts the number of DGUs because respondents are being asked by a government official to volunteer information about incidents in which they may possibly have done something that was illegal (such as committing assault with a deadly weapon by pointing a gun at someone), or which involved an illegal act (such as carrying a gun without a permit).
And Kleck actually said this......
Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.
The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.
Here is a good read:
What if some people lie to the NCVS and some to Kleck 8211 Deltoid
To determine where it lies we need to know the relative likelihoods of
false positives and false negatives. If they are equal (that is, the
percentage of non-(gun defenders) who claim to use a gun to Kleck is
the same as the percentage of gun-defenders who claim not to have used
one to the NCVS) we can solve some equations to find the true
estimate: Letting l be the fraction who lie, and d be the true
estimate we have:
d*l = d – 80,000 (The fraction of gun defenders who lie is the
discrepancy between the NCVS estimate and the true figure.)
(250M-d)*l = 2.5M – d (The fraction of non-(gun defenders) who lie is
the discrepancy between the Kleck estimate and the true figure.)
Solving for d:
d = 80,000 /(1 – (2.5M – 80,000)/250M)
= 81,000
Under this assumption, respondents to the NCVS and to Kleck are both
99% truthful.
The problem is that the NCVS is an interview with a government official, who has a badge and gets the name and address of the individual before they start the interview...so if there is any doubt about how they used their gun....they aren't going to tell the NCVS interviewer...
Also....the NCVS never directly asks if the individual used a gun for self defense.....that has to come out through other questions....Kleck directly asks the individual if they used a gun in the last year, and if they used a gun in the last five years....that is another reason the numbers are different....
And again...the NCVS does not count defensive gun uses that don't result in a death.....
And some more insight into Kleck's work....it also helps clarify the "criminal" element in defensive gun uses.....
------------------------The NCVS, Kleck argues, though based upon a much larger sample than his own survey, severely undercounts the number of DGUs because respondents are being asked by a government official to volunteer information about incidents in which they may possibly have done something that was illegal (such as committing assault with a deadly weapon by pointing a gun at someone), or which involved an illegal act (such as carrying a gun without a permit).
Myth 3 - 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year can t be accurate Buckeye Firearms Association
Kleck's study defines a DGU as a defensive action against a human (rather than an animal), involving actual contact with the person being defended against, in which the defender could state a specific crime which he or she thought was being committed at the time of the incident, and in which the defender's gun was actually used in some way, even if it was only as part of a verbal threat. A reported DGU incident must meet all of these criteria in order to be counted as a valid DGU for the purposes of the survey. Additionally, DGUs associated with work as a policeman, security guard, or member of the military are excluded.
The data for the Kleck study were collected using an anonymous nationwide random-digit-dialed telephone survey of 4,977 adults conducted from February through April of 1993 by Research Network, a telephone polling company located in Tallahassee, FL.
After a few general questions about problems in their community and crime, those polled were asked "Within the past five years, have you yourself or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard."
Those who answered "Yes" were then asked whether their defensive use was against an animal or a person, asked to state how many defensive gun use incidents against persons had happened to members of their household in the last five years, and asked whether any of the incident or incidents had occurred in the last twelve months. Of those surveyed, 222 respondents reported DGUs within the past five years. All respondents reporting DGU, as well as 20% of those not reporting a DGU, were called back to validate their initial survey interviews.
These raw data were then corrected for oversampling in the South and West regions, where gun ownership is highest; and oversampling for males, who are not only more likely to own guns, but also more likely to be victims of violent crime.
The weighted results (corrected for oversampling built into the survey) were these: 1.125% to 1.326% of respondents reported having personally been involved in a DGU incident within the past year, with 1.366% to 1.587% of households reporting a household member being involved in a DGU incident within the past year (which would include those DGUs mentioned above involving the respondent).
Calculations based on the estimated adult population of the U.S. and the estimated number of households in the U.S. show that at this rate there would be 2,163,519 to 2,549,862 DGUs in 1993 if considered on an individual basis, or some 1,325,918 to 1,540,405 DGU-involved households. For comparison, the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns in 1993 was 588,140, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports.
Kleck discusses the flaws inherent in previous surveys, including the Justice Department's National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which gives the lowest estimate of all methods used to calculate the number of DGU incidents.
The NCVS, Kleck argues, though based upon a much larger sample than his own survey, severely undercounts the number of DGUs because respondents are being asked by a government official to volunteer information about incidents in which they may possibly have done something that was illegal (such as committing assault with a deadly weapon by pointing a gun at someone), or which involved an illegal act (such as carrying a gun without a permit).
Further, the NCVS never asks directly whether the respondents used a gun to protect themselves, and only asks its general question about self-protection after respondents have already reported the location of their victimization incident, which in most cases is reported as being away from the victim's home.
Since carrying a gun without a permit is often illegal, there would be a strong motivation for respondents not to report DGU outside the home. But how accurate is the Kleck survey's estimate? What are some possible alternative explanations that could influence these results?
.....Indeed, Kleck argues, there is reason to believe that the estimate of 2.5 million annual DGUs is too low. There is the problem of self-censorship in reporting, since there is evidence that some respondents to the Kleck survey were wary of reporting such incidents to anonymous strangers, much less to government officials as in the NCVS.
Indeed.How many Americans died from gun-related violence yesterday? If you want to draw a comparison, you actually have to present something to be compared.
Indeed.How many Americans died from gun-related violence yesterday? If you want to draw a comparison, you actually have to present something to be compared.
France:
19,000,000 guns
147 gun-relaled murders
99.99923% of guns in France are NOT used to commit murder
US
300,000,000 guns
8855 gun related murders
99.99705% of guns in the US are NOT used to commit murder
Difference: 0.00218%
What conclusion do you draw from this comparison?
I would, if either standard were relevant.Indeed.How many Americans died from gun-related violence yesterday? If you want to draw a comparison, you actually have to present something to be compared.
France:
19,000,000 guns
147 gun-relaled murders
99.99923% of guns in France are NOT used to commit murder
US
300,000,000 guns
8855 gun related murders
99.99705% of guns in the US are NOT used to commit murder
Difference: 0.00218%
What conclusion do you draw from this comparison?
That you should probably use number of gun owners rather than number of guns. Or compare population to number of gun related murders.
I would, if either standard were relevant.Indeed.How many Americans died from gun-related violence yesterday? If you want to draw a comparison, you actually have to present something to be compared.
France:
19,000,000 guns
147 gun-relaled murders
99.99923% of guns in France are NOT used to commit murder
US
300,000,000 guns
8855 gun related murders
99.99705% of guns in the US are NOT used to commit murder
Difference: 0.00218%
What conclusion do you draw from this comparison?
That you should probably use number of gun owners rather than number of guns. Or compare population to number of gun related murders.
The issue brought up by the anti-gun loons, such as yourself, is the effect of the number of guns in the US on gun-related murders in the US, as compared to same in other countries.Guns don't shoot themselves. You need to use the number of gun owners.I would, if either standard were relevant.Indeed.How many Americans died from gun-related violence yesterday? If you want to draw a comparison, you actually have to present something to be compared.
France:
19,000,000 guns
147 gun-relaled murders
99.99923% of guns in France are NOT used to commit murder
US
300,000,000 guns
8855 gun related murders
99.99705% of guns in the US are NOT used to commit murder
Difference: 0.00218%
What conclusion do you draw from this comparison?
That you should probably use number of gun owners rather than number of guns. Or compare population to number of gun related murders.
Comparing to population would show the relative number of gun related murders.
The issue brought up by the anti-gun loons, such as yourself, is the effect of the number of guns in the US on gun-related murders in the US, as compared to same in other countries.Guns don't shoot themselves. You need to use the number of gun owners.I would, if either standard were relevant.Indeed.How many Americans died from gun-related violence yesterday? If you want to draw a comparison, you actually have to present something to be compared.
France:
19,000,000 guns
147 gun-relaled murders
99.99923% of guns in France are NOT used to commit murder
US
300,000,000 guns
8855 gun related murders
99.99705% of guns in the US are NOT used to commit murder
Difference: 0.00218%
What conclusion do you draw from this comparison?
That you should probably use number of gun owners rather than number of guns. Or compare population to number of gun related murders.
Comparing to population would show the relative number of gun related murders.
In that, nothing you suggest here is relevant or meaningful.
France:Well we have about 15.7X more guns than France according to your numbers. But we also have about 60X more gun related murders. That isn't a good ratio. The number of murders seems to increase dramatically with more guns.
France:Well we have about 15.7X more guns than France according to your numbers. But we also have about 60X more gun related murders. That isn't a good ratio. The number of murders seems to increase dramatically with more guns.
19,000,000 guns
147 gun-relaled murders
99.99923% of guns in France are NOT used to commit murder
US
300,000,000 guns
8855 gun related murders
99.99705% of guns in the US are NOT used to commit murder
Difference: 0.00218%
^^^^
Statistically, this equals no difference.
As per the norn, you continue to ignore reality; as such you shall remain irrelevant.France:Well we have about 15.7X more guns than France according to your numbers. But we also have about 60X more gun related murders. That isn't a good ratio. The number of murders seems to increase dramatically with more guns.
19,000,000 guns
147 gun-relaled murders
99.99923% of guns in France are NOT used to commit murder
US
300,000,000 guns
8855 gun related murders
99.99705% of guns in the US are NOT used to commit murder
Difference: 0.00218%
^^^^
Statistically, this equals no difference.
8,708 more deaths. That's a big deal. And like I said we have 15.7X more guns, but 60X more gun related murders. More guns doesn't seem to equal less murder based on those numbers.
As per the norn, you continue to ignore reality; as such you shall remain irrelevant.France:Well we have about 15.7X more guns than France according to your numbers. But we also have about 60X more gun related murders. That isn't a good ratio. The number of murders seems to increase dramatically with more guns.
19,000,000 guns
147 gun-relaled murders
99.99923% of guns in France are NOT used to commit murder
US
300,000,000 guns
8855 gun related murders
99.99705% of guns in the US are NOT used to commit murder
Difference: 0.00218%
^^^^
Statistically, this equals no difference.
8,708 more deaths. That's a big deal. And like I said we have 15.7X more guns, but 60X more gun related murders. More guns doesn't seem to equal less murder based on those numbers.
