Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[2aguy]

Awwww...you're thinking of me......

So, is it true you're so scared you carry a sidearm while grocery shopping?

I actually rarely carry. I have my CCW, and carry when I think I should....fear has nothing to do with it. I am not afraid of a car crash, but I wear a seat belt, I watch both ways before I cross the street and manage to do so without a hint of fear...... Fear really has nothing to do with carrying a gun. It is merely a tool in case a specific situation happens. When those situations do happen, and they do all across the country, rape, robbery and murder....someone who has a legal gun on their hip can handle it.......someone without is at the mercy of the criminal.

Having the option is great. I have had times where people knock on the door late at night, and knowing I have a weapon in case they are criminals is as reasuring as having a fire extingquisher in case the dryer starts on fire.

Americans use their legal guns at home and in public 1.1 million times a year....according to the Centers for Disease Control research. That means those people would have been victims...of rape, robbery or murder...but are alive, safe, and not scared for life...because they had a gun to stop the attack.

You....you would prefer that those women be raped, those people are brutally beaten and robbed....and they are murdered, and their families should lose them to a criminal..

That is your choice...I prefer the other choice..that the criminal is stopped.

 

[Brain357]

That’s a good question. I’d say by definition classic liberals and conservatives both of whom support individual freedoms support less gun control while big government progressives fight for more gun control. You will find people all over the “Left” that supports gun rights, but Ideologically speaking progressives would be the group pushing for government regulation. Although I’d argue that most people fall all over the spectrum depending on the issue

then in this case i'm speaking to the liberals i have seen that when you try to tell them functionally there is no difference between the AR-15 and a browning longtrac semi-automatic, they refuse to go "wow, i misunderstood that weapon" and instead say "then semi-automatics needs to go also".

i have *never* heard someone go "wow, i was wrong about that rifle" and to a man/woman/child i've discussed this with, the more they learn the less they want to know and the more they want to control. i don't doubt there are those on the left who are NOT like this, i've just not met one in conversation yet.

I think a lot of people are scared, frustrated, and heartbroken from the horrendous gun violence that happens in this country and they just want to do something to try and limit the carnage. Regulating guns is something g that makes sense to them so that’s what they push because guns scare them. Others feel protected by them and want to defend their rights to carry. It’s a very heated and emotional debate which needs more understanding and compassion like most political issues

but this is also why you're not likely to get that debate or discussion from gun owners. they've met far too many who won't listen to the mechanics behind their fears and simply expand their fears instead.

when you can think of a good way to rationalize with someone who is willing to keep their views alive despite learning to the contrary, let me know and i'll help get this discussion going.

The debate is rather simple. If more guns made us safer we would have the lowest homicide rate in the world. Instead ours is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control. We also have regular mass shootings, law enforcement shoots hundreds, law enforcement is shot and killed weekly, hundreds die each year in gun accidents... the effect of too many guns is clear, and not good.

---------------------------------------- its about FREEDOM and not about SAFETY Brian .

Why do you value the freedom to quickly become a mass killer? What about freedom to live?

 

[Brain357]

Awwww...you're thinking of me......

So, is it true you're so scared you carry a sidearm while grocery shopping?

I actually rarely carry. I have my CCW, and carry when I think I should....fear has nothing to do with it. I am not afraid of a car crash, but I wear a seat belt, I watch both ways before I cross the street and manage to do so without a hint of fear...... Fear really has nothing to do with carrying a gun. It is merely a tool in case a specific situation happens. When those situations do happen, and they do all across the country, rape, robbery and murder....someone who has a legal gun on their hip can handle it.......someone without is at the mercy of the criminal.

Having the option is great. I have had times where people knock on the door late at night, and knowing I have a weapon in case they are criminals is as reasuring as having a fire extingquisher in case the dryer starts on fire.

Americans use their legal guns at home and in public 1.1 million times a year....according to the Centers for Disease Control research. That means those people would have been victims...of rape, robbery or murder...but are alive, safe, and not scared for life...because they had a gun to stop the attack.

You....you would prefer that those women be raped, those people are brutally beaten and robbed....and they are murdered, and their families should lose them to a criminal..

That is your choice...I prefer the other choice..that the criminal is stopped.

Please provide the cdc study. Your lies are tiring, they never studied number of gun defenses.

 

[pismoe]

OK for all of the anti gun nut lefttards out there, answer this question. A good portion of households in Switzerland have an evil military assault rifle stashed in a closet so where are the waves of gun violence and mass shootings? If it's the guns as you say then the problem should exist there but if it's people and not guns it's long past time for you to shut your stupid yaps because you don't have brains enough to be preaching to anyone about anything. In fact you should stay away from the voting booth altogether too.

They have much stronger gun control than us and they are making it stronger. Shall we make our laws more like theirs?

-------------------------- the 'swiss' are stupid Brian .

They have a much lower homicide rate, are we stupider then?

-------------------------------------- I want the ability to own effective guns and i'm not concerned with much lower homicide , suicide , accidental death . accidents or anything like that Brian . [swiss are stupid]

 

[Polishprince]

The debate is rather simple. If more guns made us safer we would have the lowest homicide rate in the world. Instead ours is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control. We also have regular mass shootings, law enforcement shoots hundreds, law enforcement is shot and killed weekly, hundreds die each year in gun accidents... the effect of too many guns is clear, and not good.

Not true. America's murder rate is in the middle of the pack.

The number of guns available is only one factor.

I reading some history this past weekend- about the Crusades as well as the Punic Wars. Very violent time, many people killed. The surprising fact is that these event happened BEFORE firearms were even invented.

Libs who think gun control is a panacea should take that into their pipe and smoke it.

 

[2aguy]

Look, you guys are happy enough that recurring mass murders and sky high firearm homicide rates come with easy access to handguns and military style semi automatic rifles. No need to be so stridently defensive, carry your selfishness with pride.

We had 12 mass public shootings in 2018 with 93 killed. Cars killed over 38,000, pools killed over 3,500.......

Americans use their legal guns to save lives 1.1 million times a year....knowing actual facts, numbers, truth and reality, it is you who are afraid....of guns......for no rational reason.

As to gun murder.....in 2017 there were 10,982 gun murders...again, cars killed over 38,000 people, drug over doses over 70,000.

Of those 10,982, 70-80% or more of the victims are criminals...murdered by other criminals...

That leaves 2,196 innocent people, murdered with guns.....again, cars...38,000. Of those 2,196, the majority of them are friends, family and associates of criminals involved in the criminal life style...

There are 600 million guns in this country, on the low count,.......and over 17.25 million people carry guns for self defense....

As more Americans own and carry guns? Over the last 26 years , gun murder...down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime 72%...

Your entire premise is wrong.....in science...if your premise is executed and the exact opposite happens....that means your premise....hypothesis....is wrong....

In science...you are wrong.

 

[OldLady]

except i'm saying this as a general rule of what the left does, NOT YOU. if you want to wear that mantle because you're on the left, feel free. i, while being usually on "the right" don't have all my beliefs there and don't protect every RIGHT talking point available.

so if i say "the left" is doing something i mean a hallmark of "the left" is doing it - NOT you. if you wish to take offense to it and take it personally even after stating to me you are not part of *that* mindset, that's on you.

all i am saying is the gun advocates are not going to talk about control because the hallmark of the left is CONTROL = REMOVAL, not understanding.

ie - the leftist media is wrong about AR15's. instead of correcting themselves, they change the meaning of words around to still be right. when they can't refute logic / facts, they then broaden their scope vs. apply a focus to the core.

again - you want to defend something you don't believe, have fun but it's going to make for a very fucked up conversation.

Well when do you ever have a conversation with “The Left” that is an arbitrary label that is used as a strawman in political debates. I dont like labels but we are unfortunately defined by them all the time. I’m not a dem or a rep. I actually agree with more republican policies than dems, but I’m a leftard as far as this board is concerned... so whatever

great. so i can understand and be sure - are you saying the stance of the left is NOT coming after guns?

i don't like labels also, but when a trait is far too common to one side, it can and will get referenced. if you need specific examples of the left being full of shit, holler. i can find CNN with animated gifs showing rocket launchers on AR15's and gyrating like giant dildo. i can show you the left in colorado who is after banning high capacity mags and think they are "single use". i can show you people on "the left" who say we're not coming after guns and then their making statements that they are.

while i agree generalities can be and are used in debates far too often, that doesn't mean they're 100% wrong to do or use.

or would you disagree? if so, then fine. i'll just watch out for any stereotypes from you and react accordingly.

That’s a good question. I’d say by definition classic liberals and conservatives both of whom support individual freedoms support less gun control while big government progressives fight for more gun control. You will find people all over the “Left” that supports gun rights, but Ideologically speaking progressives would be the group pushing for government regulation. Although I’d argue that most people fall all over the spectrum depending on the issue

then in this case i'm speaking to the liberals i have seen that when you try to tell them functionally there is no difference between the AR-15 and a browning longtrac semi-automatic, they refuse to go "wow, i misunderstood that weapon" and instead say "then semi-automatics needs to go also".

i have *never* heard someone go "wow, i was wrong about that rifle" and to a man/woman/child i've discussed this with, the more they learn the less they want to know and the more they want to control. i don't doubt there are those on the left who are NOT like this, i've just not met one in conversation yet.

I think a lot of people are scared, frustrated, and heartbroken from the horrendous gun violence that happens in this country and they just want to do something to try and limit the carnage. Regulating guns is something g that makes sense to them so that’s what they push because guns scare them. Others feel protected by them and want to defend their rights to carry. It’s a very heated and emotional debate which needs more understanding and compassion like most political issues

A disgruntled employee just killed two people in a Walmart in Mississippi. What happened to the days of going on FaceBook and saying filthy things about your ex-supervisor who just fired you? Now they have to take a gun and kill people?

 

[2aguy]

Awwww...you're thinking of me......

So, is it true you're so scared you carry a sidearm while grocery shopping?

I actually rarely carry. I have my CCW, and carry when I think I should....fear has nothing to do with it. I am not afraid of a car crash, but I wear a seat belt, I watch both ways before I cross the street and manage to do so without a hint of fear...... Fear really has nothing to do with carrying a gun. It is merely a tool in case a specific situation happens. When those situations do happen, and they do all across the country, rape, robbery and murder....someone who has a legal gun on their hip can handle it.......someone without is at the mercy of the criminal.

Having the option is great. I have had times where people knock on the door late at night, and knowing I have a weapon in case they are criminals is as reasuring as having a fire extingquisher in case the dryer starts on fire.

Americans use their legal guns at home and in public 1.1 million times a year....according to the Centers for Disease Control research. That means those people would have been victims...of rape, robbery or murder...but are alive, safe, and not scared for life...because they had a gun to stop the attack.

You....you would prefer that those women be raped, those people are brutally beaten and robbed....and they are murdered, and their families should lose them to a criminal..

That is your choice...I prefer the other choice..that the criminal is stopped.

Please provide the cdc study. Your lies are tiring, they never studied number of gun defenses.

Here, Troll...this is the CDC....the Department of Justice found 1.5 million defensive gun uses a year.....

What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses? by Gary Kleck :: SSRN



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..



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,

are high-quality telephone surveys of enormous probability samples of U.S. adults, asking about a wide range of health-related topics. Those that addressed DGU asked more people about this topic than any other surveys conducted before or since. For example, the 1996 survey asked the DGU question of 5,484 people. The next-largest number questioned about DGU was 4,977 by Kleck and Gertz (1995), and sample sizes were much smaller in all the rest of surveys on the topic (Kleck 2001).

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:

The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996–1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense.



This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995)....CDC's results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.

 

[2aguy]

Well when do you ever have a conversation with “The Left” that is an arbitrary label that is used as a strawman in political debates. I dont like labels but we are unfortunately defined by them all the time. I’m not a dem or a rep. I actually agree with more republican policies than dems, but I’m a leftard as far as this board is concerned... so whatever

great. so i can understand and be sure - are you saying the stance of the left is NOT coming after guns?

i don't like labels also, but when a trait is far too common to one side, it can and will get referenced. if you need specific examples of the left being full of shit, holler. i can find CNN with animated gifs showing rocket launchers on AR15's and gyrating like giant dildo. i can show you the left in colorado who is after banning high capacity mags and think they are "single use". i can show you people on "the left" who say we're not coming after guns and then their making statements that they are.

while i agree generalities can be and are used in debates far too often, that doesn't mean they're 100% wrong to do or use.

or would you disagree? if so, then fine. i'll just watch out for any stereotypes from you and react accordingly.

That’s a good question. I’d say by definition classic liberals and conservatives both of whom support individual freedoms support less gun control while big government progressives fight for more gun control. You will find people all over the “Left” that supports gun rights, but Ideologically speaking progressives would be the group pushing for government regulation. Although I’d argue that most people fall all over the spectrum depending on the issue

then in this case i'm speaking to the liberals i have seen that when you try to tell them functionally there is no difference between the AR-15 and a browning longtrac semi-automatic, they refuse to go "wow, i misunderstood that weapon" and instead say "then semi-automatics needs to go also".

i have *never* heard someone go "wow, i was wrong about that rifle" and to a man/woman/child i've discussed this with, the more they learn the less they want to know and the more they want to control. i don't doubt there are those on the left who are NOT like this, i've just not met one in conversation yet.

I think a lot of people are scared, frustrated, and heartbroken from the horrendous gun violence that happens in this country and they just want to do something to try and limit the carnage. Regulating guns is something g that makes sense to them so that’s what they push because guns scare them. Others feel protected by them and want to defend their rights to carry. It’s a very heated and emotional debate which needs more understanding and compassion like most political issues

A disgruntled employee just killed two people in a Walmart in Mississippi. What happened to the days of going on FaceBook and saying filthy things about your ex-supervisor who just fired you? Now they have to take a gun and kill people?

24/7 news cycle and glorification of the killers...

 

[2aguy]

then in this case i'm speaking to the liberals i have seen that when you try to tell them functionally there is no difference between the AR-15 and a browning longtrac semi-automatic, they refuse to go "wow, i misunderstood that weapon" and instead say "then semi-automatics needs to go also".

i have *never* heard someone go "wow, i was wrong about that rifle" and to a man/woman/child i've discussed this with, the more they learn the less they want to know and the more they want to control. i don't doubt there are those on the left who are NOT like this, i've just not met one in conversation yet.

I think a lot of people are scared, frustrated, and heartbroken from the horrendous gun violence that happens in this country and they just want to do something to try and limit the carnage. Regulating guns is something g that makes sense to them so that’s what they push because guns scare them. Others feel protected by them and want to defend their rights to carry. It’s a very heated and emotional debate which needs more understanding and compassion like most political issues

but this is also why you're not likely to get that debate or discussion from gun owners. they've met far too many who won't listen to the mechanics behind their fears and simply expand their fears instead.

when you can think of a good way to rationalize with someone who is willing to keep their views alive despite learning to the contrary, let me know and i'll help get this discussion going.

The debate is rather simple. If more guns made us safer we would have the lowest homicide rate in the world. Instead ours is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control. We also have regular mass shootings, law enforcement shoots hundreds, law enforcement is shot and killed weekly, hundreds die each year in gun accidents... the effect of too many guns is clear, and not good.

---------------------------------------- its about FREEDOM and not about SAFETY Brian .

Why do you value the freedom to quickly become a mass killer? What about freedom to live?

1.1 million Americans each year live because they have the ability to own and carry guns.

In 2018 there were 12 mass public shootings, 93 killed. Cars killed over 38,000, drowning killed over 3,500....

The numbers don't support you.

 

[Brain357]

Awwww...you're thinking of me......

So, is it true you're so scared you carry a sidearm while grocery shopping?

I actually rarely carry. I have my CCW, and carry when I think I should....fear has nothing to do with it. I am not afraid of a car crash, but I wear a seat belt, I watch both ways before I cross the street and manage to do so without a hint of fear...... Fear really has nothing to do with carrying a gun. It is merely a tool in case a specific situation happens. When those situations do happen, and they do all across the country, rape, robbery and murder....someone who has a legal gun on their hip can handle it.......someone without is at the mercy of the criminal.

Having the option is great. I have had times where people knock on the door late at night, and knowing I have a weapon in case they are criminals is as reasuring as having a fire extingquisher in case the dryer starts on fire.

Americans use their legal guns at home and in public 1.1 million times a year....according to the Centers for Disease Control research. That means those people would have been victims...of rape, robbery or murder...but are alive, safe, and not scared for life...because they had a gun to stop the attack.

You....you would prefer that those women be raped, those people are brutally beaten and robbed....and they are murdered, and their families should lose them to a criminal..

That is your choice...I prefer the other choice..that the criminal is stopped.

Please provide the cdc study. Your lies are tiring, they never studied number of gun defenses.

Here, Troll...this is the CDC....the Department of Justice found 1.5 million defensive gun uses a year.....

What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses? by Gary Kleck :: SSRN



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..



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,

are high-quality telephone surveys of enormous probability samples of U.S. adults, asking about a wide range of health-related topics. Those that addressed DGU asked more people about this topic than any other surveys conducted before or since. For example, the 1996 survey asked the DGU question of 5,484 people. The next-largest number questioned about DGU was 4,977 by Kleck and Gertz (1995), and sample sizes were much smaller in all the rest of surveys on the topic (Kleck 2001).

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:

The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996–1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense.



This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995)....CDC's results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.

Gary Klerk does not do studies for the cdc. And he has a history of messing up the numbers. You are blatantly lying again.

 

[xyz]

California has banned guns, right?

No, they haven't.

 

[2aguy]

They didn't have lots of mass shootings before they banned guns.....Britain averaged 1 every 10 years before they banned guns...

Your theory, More Guns = More Mass shootings

Britain.....1 every 10 years with guns.....after they banned guns .....the same

In science, when a theory doesn't actually work, it means the theory is wrong.

Yes countries that have never been filled with guns have never had a mass shooting problem. Go figure.

Move to one of those countries. We won't miss you at all

That won’t fix the problem. Need to deport the gun nuts.

We don't have a problem

mass shootings account for less than 1% of all murders

Tell that to the dead people. Why does it happen weekly if we don’t have a problem? Our homicide rate is 4-5X higher than countries with strong gun control, that’s a lot of lives.

And you lie with your number.....those countries always had low murder rates due to cultural factors....World Wars and their impact on their societies.....before they banned and confiscated guns.......after banning guns their gun murder rates did not change....so your theory is wrong.

 

[Brain357]

I think a lot of people are scared, frustrated, and heartbroken from the horrendous gun violence that happens in this country and they just want to do something to try and limit the carnage. Regulating guns is something g that makes sense to them so that’s what they push because guns scare them. Others feel protected by them and want to defend their rights to carry. It’s a very heated and emotional debate which needs more understanding and compassion like most political issues

but this is also why you're not likely to get that debate or discussion from gun owners. they've met far too many who won't listen to the mechanics behind their fears and simply expand their fears instead.

when you can think of a good way to rationalize with someone who is willing to keep their views alive despite learning to the contrary, let me know and i'll help get this discussion going.

The debate is rather simple. If more guns made us safer we would have the lowest homicide rate in the world. Instead ours is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control. We also have regular mass shootings, law enforcement shoots hundreds, law enforcement is shot and killed weekly, hundreds die each year in gun accidents... the effect of too many guns is clear, and not good.

---------------------------------------- its about FREEDOM and not about SAFETY Brian .

Why do you value the freedom to quickly become a mass killer? What about freedom to live?

1.1 million Americans each year live because they have the ability to own and carry guns.

In 2018 there were 12 mass public shootings, 93 killed. Cars killed over 38,000, drowning killed over 3,500....

The numbers don't support you.

You claim as many defenses as we have violent crimes. That is funny. 100% are defended? Too funny.

 

[2aguy]

Awwww...you're thinking of me......

So, is it true you're so scared you carry a sidearm while grocery shopping?

I actually rarely carry. I have my CCW, and carry when I think I should....fear has nothing to do with it. I am not afraid of a car crash, but I wear a seat belt, I watch both ways before I cross the street and manage to do so without a hint of fear...... Fear really has nothing to do with carrying a gun. It is merely a tool in case a specific situation happens. When those situations do happen, and they do all across the country, rape, robbery and murder....someone who has a legal gun on their hip can handle it.......someone without is at the mercy of the criminal.

Having the option is great. I have had times where people knock on the door late at night, and knowing I have a weapon in case they are criminals is as reasuring as having a fire extingquisher in case the dryer starts on fire.

Americans use their legal guns at home and in public 1.1 million times a year....according to the Centers for Disease Control research. That means those people would have been victims...of rape, robbery or murder...but are alive, safe, and not scared for life...because they had a gun to stop the attack.

You....you would prefer that those women be raped, those people are brutally beaten and robbed....and they are murdered, and their families should lose them to a criminal..

That is your choice...I prefer the other choice..that the criminal is stopped.

Please provide the cdc study. Your lies are tiring, they never studied number of gun defenses.

Here, Troll...this is the CDC....the Department of Justice found 1.5 million defensive gun uses a year.....

What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses? by Gary Kleck :: SSRN



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..



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,

are high-quality telephone surveys of enormous probability samples of U.S. adults, asking about a wide range of health-related topics. Those that addressed DGU asked more people about this topic than any other surveys conducted before or since. For example, the 1996 survey asked the DGU question of 5,484 people. The next-largest number questioned about DGU was 4,977 by Kleck and Gertz (1995), and sample sizes were much smaller in all the rest of surveys on the topic (Kleck 2001).

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:

The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996–1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense.



This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995)....CDC's results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.

Gary Klerk does not do studies for the cdc. And he has a history of messing up the numbers. You are blatantly lying again.

Moron, he found and published the research.......he doesn't have a history of messing up numbers, he is attacked because he actually did research into gun self defense....the CDC attempt was to refute him....and they came up with 1.1 million, the Department of Justice also did their own research to refute him, and came up with 1.5 million times a year......those are 3 studies our of 17 on gun self defense...and none of them support your theory.

 

[Polishprince]

I think a lot of people are scared, frustrated, and heartbroken from the horrendous gun violence that happens in this country and they just want to do something to try and limit the carnage. Regulating guns is something g that makes sense to them so that’s what they push because guns scare them. Others feel protected by them and want to defend their rights to carry. It’s a very heated and emotional debate which needs more understanding and compassion like most political issues

but this is also why you're not likely to get that debate or discussion from gun owners. they've met far too many who won't listen to the mechanics behind their fears and simply expand their fears instead.

when you can think of a good way to rationalize with someone who is willing to keep their views alive despite learning to the contrary, let me know and i'll help get this discussion going.

The debate is rather simple. If more guns made us safer we would have the lowest homicide rate in the world. Instead ours is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control. We also have regular mass shootings, law enforcement shoots hundreds, law enforcement is shot and killed weekly, hundreds die each year in gun accidents... the effect of too many guns is clear, and not good.

---------------------------------------- its about FREEDOM and not about SAFETY Brian .

Why do you value the freedom to quickly become a mass killer? What about freedom to live?

1.1 million Americans each year live because they have the ability to own and carry guns.

In 2018 there were 12 mass public shootings, 93 killed. Cars killed over 38,000, drowning killed over 3,500....

The numbers don't support you.

7,000 people each year die of melanoma, should America seek to destroy the sun?

 

[Brain357]

Yes countries that have never been filled with guns have never had a mass shooting problem. Go figure.

Move to one of those countries. We won't miss you at all

That won’t fix the problem. Need to deport the gun nuts.

We don't have a problem

mass shootings account for less than 1% of all murders

Tell that to the dead people. Why does it happen weekly if we don’t have a problem? Our homicide rate is 4-5X higher than countries with strong gun control, that’s a lot of lives.

And you lie with your number.....those countries always had low murder rates due to cultural factors....World Wars and their impact on their societies.....before they banned and confiscated guns.......after banning guns their gun murder rates did not change....so your theory is wrong.

Due to always having low gun ownership rates.

 

[2aguy]

but this is also why you're not likely to get that debate or discussion from gun owners. they've met far too many who won't listen to the mechanics behind their fears and simply expand their fears instead.

when you can think of a good way to rationalize with someone who is willing to keep their views alive despite learning to the contrary, let me know and i'll help get this discussion going.

The debate is rather simple. If more guns made us safer we would have the lowest homicide rate in the world. Instead ours is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control. We also have regular mass shootings, law enforcement shoots hundreds, law enforcement is shot and killed weekly, hundreds die each year in gun accidents... the effect of too many guns is clear, and not good.

---------------------------------------- its about FREEDOM and not about SAFETY Brian .

Why do you value the freedom to quickly become a mass killer? What about freedom to live?

1.1 million Americans each year live because they have the ability to own and carry guns.

In 2018 there were 12 mass public shootings, 93 killed. Cars killed over 38,000, drowning killed over 3,500....

The numbers don't support you.

You claim as many defenses as we have violent crimes. That is funny. 100% are defended? Too funny.

Wrong, violent crimes go unreported, in particular rape....you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Brain357]

So, is it true you're so scared you carry a sidearm while grocery shopping?

I actually rarely carry. I have my CCW, and carry when I think I should....fear has nothing to do with it. I am not afraid of a car crash, but I wear a seat belt, I watch both ways before I cross the street and manage to do so without a hint of fear...... Fear really has nothing to do with carrying a gun. It is merely a tool in case a specific situation happens. When those situations do happen, and they do all across the country, rape, robbery and murder....someone who has a legal gun on their hip can handle it.......someone without is at the mercy of the criminal.

Having the option is great. I have had times where people knock on the door late at night, and knowing I have a weapon in case they are criminals is as reasuring as having a fire extingquisher in case the dryer starts on fire.

Americans use their legal guns at home and in public 1.1 million times a year....according to the Centers for Disease Control research. That means those people would have been victims...of rape, robbery or murder...but are alive, safe, and not scared for life...because they had a gun to stop the attack.

You....you would prefer that those women be raped, those people are brutally beaten and robbed....and they are murdered, and their families should lose them to a criminal..

That is your choice...I prefer the other choice..that the criminal is stopped.

Please provide the cdc study. Your lies are tiring, they never studied number of gun defenses.

Here, Troll...this is the CDC....the Department of Justice found 1.5 million defensive gun uses a year.....

What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses? by Gary Kleck :: SSRN



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..



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,

are high-quality telephone surveys of enormous probability samples of U.S. adults, asking about a wide range of health-related topics. Those that addressed DGU asked more people about this topic than any other surveys conducted before or since. For example, the 1996 survey asked the DGU question of 5,484 people. The next-largest number questioned about DGU was 4,977 by Kleck and Gertz (1995), and sample sizes were much smaller in all the rest of surveys on the topic (Kleck 2001).

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:

The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996–1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense.



This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995)....CDC's results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.

Gary Klerk does not do studies for the cdc. And he has a history of messing up the numbers. You are blatantly lying again.

Moron, he found and published the research.......he doesn't have a history of messing up numbers, he is attacked because he actually did research into gun self defense....the CDC attempt was to refute him....and they came up with 1.1 million, the Department of Justice also did their own research to refute him, and came up with 1.5 million times a year......those are 3 studies our of 17 on gun self defense...and none of them support your theory.

He is not the cdc you lying scum.

 

[2aguy]

Move to one of those countries. We won't miss you at all

That won’t fix the problem. Need to deport the gun nuts.

We don't have a problem

mass shootings account for less than 1% of all murders

Tell that to the dead people. Why does it happen weekly if we don’t have a problem? Our homicide rate is 4-5X higher than countries with strong gun control, that’s a lot of lives.

And you lie with your number.....those countries always had low murder rates due to cultural factors....World Wars and their impact on their societies.....before they banned and confiscated guns.......after banning guns their gun murder rates did not change....so your theory is wrong.

Due to always having low gun ownership rates.

Wrong...culture.....their criminals do not choose to use their illegal guns to commit murder......ours do. Britain can't stop the flood of illegal guns into their country, yet their criminals don't commit murder as often...yet...but they are building up to it...

Police struggle to stop flood of firearms into UK


Police and border officials are struggling to stop a rising supply of illegal firearms being smuggled into Britain, a senior police chief has warned.

Chief constable Andy Cooke, the national police lead for serious and organised crime, said law enforcement had seen an increased supply of guns over the past year, and feared that it would continue in 2019

The Guardian has learned that the situation is so serious that the National Crime Agency has taken the rare step of using its legal powers to direct every single police force to step up the fight against illegal guns.

The NCA has used tasking powers to direct greater intelligence about firearms to be gathered by all 43 forces in England and Wales.

Another senior law enforcement official said that “new and clean” weapons were now being used in the majority of shootings, as opposed to guns once being so difficult to obtain that they would be “rented out” to be used in multiple crimes.

Cooke, the Merseyside chief constable, told the Guardian: “We in law enforcement expect the rise in new firearms to continue. We are doing all we can. We are not in a position to stop it anytime soon.

“Law enforcement is more joined up now than before, but the scale of the problem is such that despite a number of excellent firearms seizures, I expect the rise in supply to be a continuing issue.”

The increasing supply of guns belies problems with UK border security and innovations by organised crime gangs. Smugglers have increasingly found new ways and innovative routes to get guns past border defences.


Cooke said that the dynamics of the streets of British cities had changed and that criminals were more willing to use guns: “If they bring them in people will buy them. It’s a kudos thing for organised criminals.”

Simon Brough, head of firearms at the NCA, said: “The majority of guns being used are new, clean firearms ... which indicates a relatively fluid supply.”

He said shotguns were 40% of the total, with an increase in burglaries to try and steal them.

Handguns are the next biggest category, most often smuggled in from overseas, with ferry ports such as Dover being a popular entry point into the UK for organised crime groups:

“We’re doing a lot to fight back against it,” Brough said, adding that compared to other European countries, the availability in the UK was relatively lower.
==========

Crime will continue to rise until us bobbies are released from the shackles of the PC police

The national crime figures released this week confirmed what my colleagues and I have known for some time. Violent crime is out of control and criminals now see certain cities and towns across the country as places where they can act with impunity.

This is not just about gangland battles in the likes of Brixton or Tottenham. What we are facing is a national crisis, fast spreading across the provinces.

In the West Midlands, for example, we had a murder rate last year on a par with that of London. Gun crime in our region is running at similarly high levels and violent thugs in my area have developed a