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.
The fact there are only 238 criminals killed in defense each year proves your claim of millions of defenses is false.
How do you claim that Brain.....I would like to know your methodology.....
And there are two parts to the reason why it is so low....1) law abiding citizens don't want to kill people....they will threaten, and they will only shoot when absolutely necessary....and most of the time they simply hold the criminal for police, or injure them without killing them.....the study you cite, the NCVS only counts deaths.....not injuries or captures, or scaring off criminals..
2) the majority of criminals do not want to be shot....because one, they might die, and 2 if they are just injured it increases the likely hood they may die later, or get captured as they seek medical attention, or are identified by their gun shot wound.....that is why most run, rather than fight....and since they can't shoot at gun ranges...they are lousy shots, and get outshot by good people....
Applaud the number Brain....the restraint shown by law abiding citizens is something that is congratulate, not complain about.....
The fact there are only 238 criminals killed in defense each year proves your claim of millions of defenses is false.
How do you claim that Brain.....I would like to know your methodology.....
And there are two parts to the reason why it is so low....1) law abiding citizens don't want to kill people....they will threaten, and they will only shoot when absolutely necessary....and most of the time they simply hold the criminal for police, or injure them without killing them.....the study you cite, the NCVS only counts deaths.....not injuries or captures, or scaring off criminals..
2) the majority of criminals do not want to be shot....because one, they might die, and 2 if they are just injured it increases the likely hood they may die later, or get captured as they seek medical attention, or are identified by their gun shot wound.....that is why most run, rather than fight....and since they can't shoot at gun ranges...they are lousy shots, and get outshot by good people....
Applaud the number Brain....the restraint shown by law abiding citizens is something that is congratulate, not complain about.....
Well there is common sense which should be enough. But we also have this very pro gun study:
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters With Data Tables
34% end in a dead criminal. That is similar to what I have seen reading about different defenses.
Overview
For the period 1997 – 2001, reports from “The Armed Citizen” column of the NRA Journals were collected. There were 482 incidents available for inclusion in the analysis. All involved the use of firearms by private citizens in self defense or defense of others. No law enforcement related incidents were included. The database is self-selecting in that no non-positive outcomes were reported in the column.
The fact there are only 238 criminals killed in defense each year proves your claim of millions of defenses is false.
How do you claim that Brain.....I would like to know your methodology.....
And there are two parts to the reason why it is so low....1) law abiding citizens don't want to kill people....they will threaten, and they will only shoot when absolutely necessary....and most of the time they simply hold the criminal for police, or injure them without killing them.....the study you cite, the NCVS only counts deaths.....not injuries or captures, or scaring off criminals..
2) the majority of criminals do not want to be shot....because one, they might die, and 2 if they are just injured it increases the likely hood they may die later, or get captured as they seek medical attention, or are identified by their gun shot wound.....that is why most run, rather than fight....and since they can't shoot at gun ranges...they are lousy shots, and get outshot by good people....
Applaud the number Brain....the restraint shown by law abiding citizens is something that is congratulate, not complain about.....
Well there is common sense which should be enough. But we also have this very pro gun study:
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters With Data Tables
34% end in a dead criminal. That is similar to what I have seen reading about different defenses.
Brain.......that is what you are going to go with.........they are a pro gun source but they say right at the start they are taking their data from the Armed Citizen site.....and those stories only...which means the stories have to be in the news, somewhere in the country to even make their research......Brain....it isn't even close to a real study, it just analysis shootings and fatalaties listed in those articles...not all gun self defense uses that actually happen.....
Brain...really?
Oh, I get it ......you don't understand that "The Armed Citizen" is the name of the portion of the NRA site where they collect media stories of people using guns for self defense...it isn't the name of a study....like say..."The National Crime Victimization Survey".......it is the title of the blog site.....
here...this is where they state it....
The Armed Citizen – A Five Year Analysis
Overview
For the period 1997 – 2001, reports from “The Armed Citizen” column of the NRA Journals were collected. There were 482 incidents available for inclusion in the analysis. All involved the use of firearms by private citizens in self defense or defense of others. No law enforcement related incidents were included. The database is self-selecting in that no non-positive outcomes were reported in the column.
Talk about using bad information.....and I like the Armed Citizen site....you can see stories of law abiding citizens who use guns to stop crime....but it isn't scientific...or actual research......
Brain....you say Kleck is wrong....and yet think that this look at specific shootings is the last word......wow.....
The fact there are only 238 criminals killed in defense each year proves your claim of millions of defenses is false.
How do you claim that Brain.....I would like to know your methodology.....
And there are two parts to the reason why it is so low....1) law abiding citizens don't want to kill people....they will threaten, and they will only shoot when absolutely necessary....and most of the time they simply hold the criminal for police, or injure them without killing them.....the study you cite, the NCVS only counts deaths.....not injuries or captures, or scaring off criminals..
2) the majority of criminals do not want to be shot....because one, they might die, and 2 if they are just injured it increases the likely hood they may die later, or get captured as they seek medical attention, or are identified by their gun shot wound.....that is why most run, rather than fight....and since they can't shoot at gun ranges...they are lousy shots, and get outshot by good people....
Applaud the number Brain....the restraint shown by law abiding citizens is something that is congratulate, not complain about.....
Well there is common sense which should be enough. But we also have this very pro gun study:
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters With Data Tables
34% end in a dead criminal. That is similar to what I have seen reading about different defenses.
Brain.......that is what you are going to go with.........they are a pro gun source but they say right at the start they are taking their data from the Armed Citizen site.....and those stories only...which means the stories have to be in the news, somewhere in the country to even make their research......Brain....it isn't even close to a real study, it just analysis shootings and fatalaties listed in those articles...not all gun self defense uses that actually happen.....
Brain...really?
It is a study of actual documented events. I see no reason why that sample wouldn't be accurate.
You are sold on surveys of up to 5000 people that extrapolate out to 3 million somehow? Not a single documented defense in those surveys. To that I have to say really?
The study says 34%. If your 1.6 million were accurate it would be .0001. That is just silly.
The fact there are only 238 criminals killed in defense each year proves your claim of millions of defenses is false.
How do you claim that Brain.....I would like to know your methodology.....
And there are two parts to the reason why it is so low....1) law abiding citizens don't want to kill people....they will threaten, and they will only shoot when absolutely necessary....and most of the time they simply hold the criminal for police, or injure them without killing them.....the study you cite, the NCVS only counts deaths.....not injuries or captures, or scaring off criminals..
2) the majority of criminals do not want to be shot....because one, they might die, and 2 if they are just injured it increases the likely hood they may die later, or get captured as they seek medical attention, or are identified by their gun shot wound.....that is why most run, rather than fight....and since they can't shoot at gun ranges...they are lousy shots, and get outshot by good people....
Applaud the number Brain....the restraint shown by law abiding citizens is something that is congratulate, not complain about.....
Well there is common sense which should be enough. But we also have this very pro gun study:
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters With Data Tables
34% end in a dead criminal. That is similar to what I have seen reading about different defenses.
Brain.......that is what you are going to go with.........they are a pro gun source but they say right at the start they are taking their data from the Armed Citizen site.....and those stories only...which means the stories have to be in the news, somewhere in the country to even make their research......Brain....it isn't even close to a real study, it just analysis shootings and fatalaties listed in those articles...not all gun self defense uses that actually happen.....
Brain...really?
It is a study of actual documented events. I see no reason why that sample wouldn't be accurate.
You are sold on surveys of up to 5000 people that extrapolate out to 3 million somehow? Not a single documented defense in those surveys. To that I have to say really?
The study says 34%. If your 1.6 million were accurate it would be .0001. That is just silly.
brain...you are just wrong....those studies actually use very specific research methods...in particular, the people in Kleck's study were actually spoken to by the researchers....so you are wrong again.
How do you claim that Brain.....I would like to know your methodology.....
And there are two parts to the reason why it is so low....1) law abiding citizens don't want to kill people....they will threaten, and they will only shoot when absolutely necessary....and most of the time they simply hold the criminal for police, or injure them without killing them.....the study you cite, the NCVS only counts deaths.....not injuries or captures, or scaring off criminals..
2) the majority of criminals do not want to be shot....because one, they might die, and 2 if they are just injured it increases the likely hood they may die later, or get captured as they seek medical attention, or are identified by their gun shot wound.....that is why most run, rather than fight....and since they can't shoot at gun ranges...they are lousy shots, and get outshot by good people....
Applaud the number Brain....the restraint shown by law abiding citizens is something that is congratulate, not complain about.....
Well there is common sense which should be enough. But we also have this very pro gun study:
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters With Data Tables
34% end in a dead criminal. That is similar to what I have seen reading about different defenses.
Brain.......that is what you are going to go with.........they are a pro gun source but they say right at the start they are taking their data from the Armed Citizen site.....and those stories only...which means the stories have to be in the news, somewhere in the country to even make their research......Brain....it isn't even close to a real study, it just analysis shootings and fatalaties listed in those articles...not all gun self defense uses that actually happen.....
Brain...really?
It is a study of actual documented events. I see no reason why that sample wouldn't be accurate.
You are sold on surveys of up to 5000 people that extrapolate out to 3 million somehow? Not a single documented defense in those surveys. To that I have to say really?
The study says 34%. If your 1.6 million were accurate it would be .0001. That is just silly.
brain...you are just wrong....those studies actually use very specific research methods...in particular, the people in Kleck's study were actually spoken to by the researchers....so you are wrong again.
No bill you are wrong. They talked to but did not document the event. It may or may not have happened. It may have happened a year ago or 15 years ago. They are just surveys that all arrive at different numbers proving how inaccurate a survey is.
I give you a study on actual events that are documented. There is no way a criminal is shot and killed by only .0001 of the time, and you know that.
a large percent of The Armed Citizen end in dead criminals is the reason they are reported on in the first place....that makes the local news....but rarely national news....
Well there is common sense which should be enough. But we also have this very pro gun study:
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters With Data Tables
34% end in a dead criminal. That is similar to what I have seen reading about different defenses.
Brain.......that is what you are going to go with.........they are a pro gun source but they say right at the start they are taking their data from the Armed Citizen site.....and those stories only...which means the stories have to be in the news, somewhere in the country to even make their research......Brain....it isn't even close to a real study, it just analysis shootings and fatalaties listed in those articles...not all gun self defense uses that actually happen.....
Brain...really?
It is a study of actual documented events. I see no reason why that sample wouldn't be accurate.
You are sold on surveys of up to 5000 people that extrapolate out to 3 million somehow? Not a single documented defense in those surveys. To that I have to say really?
The study says 34%. If your 1.6 million were accurate it would be .0001. That is just silly.
brain...you are just wrong....those studies actually use very specific research methods...in particular, the people in Kleck's study were actually spoken to by the researchers....so you are wrong again.
No bill you are wrong. They talked to but did not document the event. It may or may not have happened. It may have happened a year ago or 15 years ago. They are just surveys that all arrive at different numbers proving how inaccurate a survey is.
I give you a study on actual events that are documented. There is no way a criminal is shot and killed by only .0001 of the time, and you know that.
Brain....going thru The Armed Citizen is not an actual study....please, is there anyone out there with a research background that can explain to him why he is wrong?
Kleck specifically spoke to each respondent who said they used a gun in self defense, and re interviewed them to double check their responses...look at his explanation of his work....
Well there is common sense which should be enough. But we also have this very pro gun study:
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters With Data Tables
34% end in a dead criminal. That is similar to what I have seen reading about different defenses.
Brain.......that is what you are going to go with.........they are a pro gun source but they say right at the start they are taking their data from the Armed Citizen site.....and those stories only...which means the stories have to be in the news, somewhere in the country to even make their research......Brain....it isn't even close to a real study, it just analysis shootings and fatalaties listed in those articles...not all gun self defense uses that actually happen.....
Brain...really?
It is a study of actual documented events. I see no reason why that sample wouldn't be accurate.
You are sold on surveys of up to 5000 people that extrapolate out to 3 million somehow? Not a single documented defense in those surveys. To that I have to say really?
The study says 34%. If your 1.6 million were accurate it would be .0001. That is just silly.
brain...you are just wrong....those studies actually use very specific research methods...in particular, the people in Kleck's study were actually spoken to by the researchers....so you are wrong again.
No bill you are wrong. They talked to but did not document the event. It may or may not have happened. It may have happened a year ago or 15 years ago. They are just surveys that all arrive at different numbers proving how inaccurate a survey is.
I give you a study on actual events that are documented. There is no way a criminal is shot and killed by only .0001 of the time, and you know that.
Brain....going thru The Armed Citizen is not an actual study....please, is there anyone out there with a research background that can explain to him why he is wrong?
Kleck specifically spoke to each respondent who said they used a gun in self defense, and re interviewed them to double check their responses...look at his explanation of his work....
Brain.......that is what you are going to go with.........they are a pro gun source but they say right at the start they are taking their data from the Armed Citizen site.....and those stories only...which means the stories have to be in the news, somewhere in the country to even make their research......Brain....it isn't even close to a real study, it just analysis shootings and fatalaties listed in those articles...not all gun self defense uses that actually happen.....
Brain...really?
It is a study of actual documented events. I see no reason why that sample wouldn't be accurate.
You are sold on surveys of up to 5000 people that extrapolate out to 3 million somehow? Not a single documented defense in those surveys. To that I have to say really?
The study says 34%. If your 1.6 million were accurate it would be .0001. That is just silly.
brain...you are just wrong....those studies actually use very specific research methods...in particular, the people in Kleck's study were actually spoken to by the researchers....so you are wrong again.
No bill you are wrong. They talked to but did not document the event. It may or may not have happened. It may have happened a year ago or 15 years ago. They are just surveys that all arrive at different numbers proving how inaccurate a survey is.
I give you a study on actual events that are documented. There is no way a criminal is shot and killed by only .0001 of the time, and you know that.
Brain....going thru The Armed Citizen is not an actual study....please, is there anyone out there with a research background that can explain to him why he is wrong?
Kleck specifically spoke to each respondent who said they used a gun in self defense, and re interviewed them to double check their responses...look at his explanation of his work....
It is a study of actual documented events. Not just a survey.
