Over charging the parents of the Michigan shooter to attack normal gun owners.....

[2aguy]

LOL,
"depending on the populations, timeframe and other factors"

You are the population and the other factors:

• You picked 1.2 million out of the air, because you are a gun lover;
• The Population of NRA Members would pick the larger numbers
• The number in the links on gun violence has shown lesser numbers for defensive use of a gun, when the vast number of deaths by gun are suicides, accidents and homicides.

No....I cited the number from the Centers for Disease Control...I have cited that number hundreds of times now, as well as the other 18 studies....

I often show all of the studies........you have nothing...

You are lying.....you have seen this information from me over and over again....you really must be a simpleton...

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

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

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

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

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

2021 national firearms survey..

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

 

[2aguy]

LOL,
"depending on the populations, timeframe and other factors"

You are the population and the other factors:

• You picked 1.2 million out of the air, because you are a gun lover;
• The Population of NRA Members would pick the larger numbers
• The number in the links on gun violence has shown lesser numbers for defensive use of a gun, when the vast number of deaths by gun are suicides, accidents and homicides.

The CDC research....the fiindings they hid....

SSRN Electronic Library

Abstract​

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

=========



Reason article on the revised paper..



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]

LOL,
"depending on the populations, timeframe and other factors"

You are the population and the other factors:

• You picked 1.2 million out of the air, because you are a gun lover;
• The Population of NRA Members would pick the larger numbers
• The number in the links on gun violence has shown lesser numbers for defensive use of a gun, when the vast number of deaths by gun are suicides, accidents and homicides.

BTW, using this, "Use your fingers and toes if you have to...."as a insult is proof of you inability to be polite when challenged, very childish indeed.

Another study I cite, over and over again, from the Department of Justice under bill, the rapist, clinton.........when they hired two, anti-gun researchers to refute the findings of Gary Kleck......and they failed...

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

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



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

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

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

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

 

[iamwhatiseem]

IT is very early with little information to go off of for me to judge this situation right or wrong.
Clearly these two are TERRIBLE parents. But you can't jail someone for being a sucky parent. We would need to build 100,000 more prisons in this country if that was the case.
The question arises...why did they buy the gun and gave access to their son when they witnessed some concerning behavior and writings/drawings he made.
I will wait for judgement once more info in what their role was, if any.

 

[2aguy]

IT is very early with little information to go off of for me to judge this situation right or wrong.
Clearly these two are TERRIBLE parents. But you can't jail someone for being a sucky parent. We would need to build 100,000 more prisons in this country if that was the case.
The question arises...why did they buy the gun and gave access to their son when they witnessed some concerning behavior and writings/drawings he made.
I will wait for judgement once more info in what their role was, if any.

We don't know what they knew or what they were doing with this kid......

The "concerning behavior," we know about came from one meeting with the school principal on the actual day of the event....if there were other signs, we don't know......that hasn't come out yet....but jumping at the information we have at this point is silly......

What access did they give the boy to the gun? He got the gun, but that doesn't mean they handed it to him or that it wasn't locked up.

 

[odanny]

I'm sure she has......and that fact cannot be questioned.

And I'm not inbred.

I'm from Montana....and much of my family is either Scottish, Irish, Native-American, Korean, African-American, or British.....with alot of Danish thrown in to the mix.
There's nothing inbred about me or my family.
I'm closely related to Daniel Boone, Abraham Lincoln, and King Robert The Bruce.
So cram it.

Cool story, bro.

 

[Muhammed]

If the kid had taken a butcher knife out of his parents' kitchen and stabbed a bunch of people to death, would the parents be charged?

Of course not.

This is simply another authoritarian Democrat assault against civil rights.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yes, hunting is a dying art. Did you know more coons are present today than when Danial Boone was around. More deer are killed by cars than hunters. And tell me, who do you know that hunts rabbits? Most people I know that eat rabbits raise them in cages. Squirrels, they are every damn where. Who eats squirrel meat? But that is not an argument against gun control. If anything, it supports enhanced gun control. I mean I got to be honest, if you own a bunch of guns and don't put game on your family's table you are big ass pussy with a tiny ass pecker. I quail hunt, with dogs, mostly because dogs were a gift from the Gods to teach men how to lead people. And I was taught by the best, my grandfather, who almost always came home with more birds than shells he used. He took two at a time, shooting them when they crossed. And his explanation was simple. His Dad, who had 16 kids, sent him out with two shotgun shells and told him to get supper.

I live in the foothills of the Blue Ridge mountains. I know many people that get every bit of their protein from hunting. I know some that hunt, or raise, every bit of the food they eat. I even have some friends that are completely off the grid, a water wheel providing electricity and farming and hunting to raise their food. I can tell you, I doubt a single one of them own a handgun. Sure, carrying a 45 while boar hunting is not a bad policy. But it takes balls to face down a charging boar with that 45. If you don't have balls that big, then you don't deserve to have a 45, or any other pistol.

The reason we have so much game these days is because of hunters.
Controlled hunting. We had a shortage of game because of sport hunters back around the 1880s.
I don't call it a sport.
Stacks of Buffalo and all they wanted was a single piece of meat from them.
Disgraceful.

I've been hunting with trigger-happy guys with buck fever before.
Guys that blew a box of ammo and got one deer. If you like to shoot the place up all you're doing is giving away your position to game. Fire one shot...forget about seeing anything the rest of the day, so you'd better hit it the first time.


I grew up in the Rocky Mountains and hunted in the grass and sagebrush in Eastern Montana. We didn't set up tree-stands and wait for the game to come to us....we had to go out looking for it. The only time you saw it was early in the morning as the Sun came up when I was a kid. Lately deer are eating the bushes in people's backyards. Here in TN deer eat my flowers and rabbits eat my crops a day or two after I plant them. I see Turkeys every other day in my neighbor's yards....sometimes in mine. But I don't like the taste of either. I prefer Buffalo and Elk....and you can't hunt them or see them here. I also liked Antelope....very sweet meat. None of that here. Don't like the taste of Duck or Pheasant.....but I have gone out with my school to count them to see how their populations were doing. I killed a Rabbit a while back with my Beebee gun from my back porch. Got tired of them eating my lettuce.

I own guns that I never shot yet.....haven't even gone to the range to zero them. Most of my shooting was when I was in the military. I actually trained people how to take down a building. I like to collect guns like my Yugo M48 8mm Bolt-action Mauser. But I've shot dozens of military weapons. Some people think they know how to shoot, but they really don't. I spent 2 solid months 16 hour days on the range. Learned how to shoot indoors in hostage situations. Personally I resent anyone who says if I own a gun I need to shoot it all of the time. I learned that if you know what you're doing...you're going to hit what you're aiming at. The principle is simple. With pistols it's front sightpost and squeeze. If you're surprised by the recoil you're going to be more accurate rather than anticipating recoil. I'm usually more accurate with other people's guns than they are with their own. We practiced Ball&Dummy to prevent anticipation. We'd practice squeezing the trigger by dry-firing with a dime on the sights.

When I was in Somalia we shot a wild boar from a UH-60 Blackhawk using an M24 Sniper system, and that was the best meat I ever ate. Yummy.

 

[mudwhistle]

Cool story, bro.

Feel the burn, bitch.

 

[ClaireH]

Maybe. If they enabled the little shit I have no problem with them being charged as they are.

With Rights come responsibilities. If they ignored their basic responsibilities they should be fried with rheir little shit off spring.

It appears, if the reports are correct, that both the school and the parents would fail a basic IQ test. IQ test question: determine the best response from the following scenario: A teenager draws violent pictures depicting guns and shooting. After a teacher reported the incident parents came in and met with school heads. This was the second day of school meetings due to teenagers in-school actions. Parents were aware there was an unsecured gun presumably at home. What happens at the meeting? Nobody checks his backpack nor locker- not one school authority nor parent. Wth!? MAJOR fail…….the school failed and the parents failed. That one action alone would’ve saved all lives taken. Total ineptness. True about hindsight always better but that blows my mind that neither of his parents connected the dots nor at least mentioned that a gun could be in his backpack or locker. School is blaming parents for not checking his backpack but both are possibly liable.

From the email his mom sent sounds like she is the type who wants to be “a friend” to her son, not a parent, texting him after knowing the school trouble “lol I’m not mad at you” and “you need to learn not to get caught”. I guess she should’ve taught him more about that last part - what piece of work.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

If the kid had taken a butcher knife out of his parents' kitchen and stabbed a bunch of people to death, would the parents be charged?

Of course not.

This is simply another authoritarian Democrat assault against civil rights.

It's a lot easier to run from a knife than a 9mm bullet.

 

[mudwhistle]

It's a lot easier to run from a knife than a 9mm bullet.

Depends on who's doing the shooting.

 

[Muhammed]

It's a lot easier to run from a knife than a 9mm bullet.

So what? How is that relevant?

 

[sealybobo]

Its a reach to charge the parents at the same time you charge the child as an adult.

They seem to have been exceptionally callous in responding to the threat their son caused.

Where is the gun?

Would be the normal response

There are a lot of people in prison who’s parents should probably be in there too. This is one of those cases. But still I would charge the kid and parents. He knew what he was doing was wrong. His mom texted him don’t do it.

Maybe if he would have taken his meds someone might say. I don’t want to hope he’s taking them. If he’s capable of murder he shouldn’t be living among us. And since republicans like straw purchases, we can’t trust the system would stop him from buying a gun

I don’t care what the circumstances are for Ted buddy or this kid. They should neve4 be set free. Didnt they let John lenons or Ronald Reagan’s shooter out? I think the guy who shot Reagan is free. Why? Are you really sure they won’t kill again?

 

[sealybobo]

Depends on who's doing the shooting.

I’ve heard this argument before

 

[sealybobo]

DementocRats play both sides of the problem.

This way, whatever they say about it, to them, is the truth.......because they play both sides.
Kind of like when your wife starts blaming you for something she did, in order to "start something" to puff up her ego and bring you down, so she can continue to feel superior to you and exercise control over you.


Sorry, couldn't think of another analogy.

What is your truth here?

 

[sealybobo]

These aren't normal gun owners, nor are they good parents. They KNEW what he was capable of, but didn't do anything to stop it.

As long as you aren’t defending them that’s cool. It shows you are not completely dug in on the issue and able to not politicize this.

 

[sealybobo]

Should have aborted that kid when he was a fetus....but now it's too late.
You can't charge people for something that someone else does. At worst you can fine them. But if you're sending Jackbooted Thugs after them.....you're the one who's wrong.

We had this discussion about a DA who released somebody who drove his SUV into a Christmas Parade.
You folks think the DA isn't responsible.
No....he is partly responsible if he knew the guy had a record of violence and criminal activity.....and chose to set bail at $1000.00.
The parents of this kid are much less liable than that DA is because their kid never murdered anyone before, yet you numbnuts think they should be buried under City Hall because they couldn't STOP their kid from stealing a gun....mainly because if you own a gun and have kids they will get ahold of them if the kid is a rotten thief and has homicidal tendencies. What are the parents supposed to do, abort the kid retroactively?

This is yet another case of the two-tiered justice system in this country....and the constant double-standards of the left.

Yes you can charge parents for what their kids do especially if you buy him a gun that he couldn’t legally buy himself because he wasn’t 18

 

[2aguy]

Yes you can charge parents for what their kids do especially if you buy him a gun that he couldn’t legally buy himself because he wasn’t 18

You mean like all the kids with hunting rifles.......when they are too young to actually own them, but are essentially their gun?

You idiots don't know enough about this situation to post about it.....

 

[2aguy]

As long as you aren’t defending them that’s cool. It shows you are not completely dug in on the issue and able to not politicize this.

We don't know enough to defend or not defend these parents....

How about the parent/parents of the black teenager who shot 3 people at his school, was given bail, was out of jail in a day, and his parent/parents gave him a party?

Should they have been arrested?