The Right To Bear Arms

[ChrisL]

I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads. Hmmm. Lol.

 

[2aguy]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

According to the US Constitution, the right to bear arms is absolutely absolute It shall not be infringed. It is more of a protected right than voting and just as fundamental.
Yes, convicted felons, the mentally deficient and children should not possess firearms. They should not vote either.
I am a pro-2nd Amendment poster here that is far from hysterical and about 60 IQ points ahead of you from the look of the uninformed drivel you post here.
As for your guy with the cat.... Perhaps the guy shouldn't have a gun. He did a stupid thing. Maybe he should lose his right to vote too?

How about that? How about we have "reasonable voting control"? You walk in to your polling place and the proctor asks you 10 questions about government. If you can't answer them and prove who you are, you don't vote.
That's reasonable, isn't it?

You people's arguments are so stupid and are generally always logical failures: there is no comparison between voting and owning a gun. Voting is not the same thing as having a firearm, which kills people or animals, in your possession. There is no comparison between voting and having a gun.

Owning guns protects the right to vote....just look at any dictatorship......they all vote....North Korea, Iraq under sadaam, Iran.........and no freedom......what protects freedom........free people with guns.....that protects the vote..........

 

[2aguy]

I am getting they are criminals from the same person:
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

So if they are used 3-4 times more for defense then they must be used by criminals defending against unarmed criminals a lot. But yes they are certainly used in self defense, just according to Kleck mostly by people involved in criminal behavior.

They must be defending against unarmed criminals? Where do you get that from? Does it say that anywhere in the study?

Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this. Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?" You can't just make a claim. You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.

Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.

There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
You can find it in here:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns. I'm familiar with the study. You need to show where it says what you claim it says. That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.

I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over. I'm sure you can find it.

I've followed your links and not found the statement. Frankly, I doubt it says what you keep quoting.

Kleck refers to the situation when the study was done...it isn't surprising that gun grabbers don't understand the history of gun control....they don't understand any history really, that is why they believe in big government, and disarming good people.......history for gun grabbers and the other liberals starts when they wake up in the morning.....

In the 90s, you didn't have the concealed carry laws that we have today....it took Florida to start that ball rolling....but....criminals still existed and still preyed on innocent people....remember when tourists in Florida were being killed....because the criminals knew they couldn't carry guns in Florida....and the criminals just followed the new tourists from the airport? So law abiding citizens who carried guns for defense against criminals, who then displayed that gun, drew that gun but did not shoot the gun....would not want to tell cops they were carrying a weapon "illegally" because thanks to the anti gunners, that would be a felony.......back in the 90s....

Today....not a problem like it was back then....my state...Illinois....we now have concealed carry.....so those law abiding citizens can now carry "legally"......which in and of itself stupid, since even back in the 90s the 2nd Amendment existed and any law barring the ability to carry a weapon for self defense was unconstitutional......but Brain will still beat that drum with that quote....I keep hoping to find the passage he found it in...to get the whole context....but other things Kleck has stated pretty much points out the opposite of what Brain says......

 

[Ernie S.]

I tend to agree with you about Kleck. I have repeatedly asked for the quote in context with a link. He keeps ducking the question.

Florida was the first large state to go from may issue to shall issue, but I believe Connecticut, of all states, was the first some time before Florida. Their system was and is cumbersome, but if you have a clear record, you will get a CCP in CT.

Alabama is about the most efficient. It is also a shall issue state. You walk int the Sheriff's office, fill out a form, show your driver's license and pose for a photo. No prints and your background check takes about 30 seconds. The whole process takes under 5 minutes. The form is straight forward. It asks about felony records and your address and if you have held or do hold pistol permits in other states. No finger prints required no reason for carrying is asked for.

The fee is $25/year ($20 if you're over 65.

 

[AntiParty]

The American people no longer need guns, and haven't for decades.

Says you, but we already know that you have an irrational fear of guns and run away from them whenever you see one. Lol.

That must be why I have one five feet from me eh ****?

You're just making shit up, of course.

Nope.

of course you are

you are a garment soiling coward

^ Look at all of the education in that post.

I'll have to remember that line for every possible debate in the future. Why hold a knowledge when you can simply call someone a "garment soiling coward" and feel like a pro?

 

[AntiParty]

Guns are important in society. Lack of what was supposed to be a "well regulated militia" has caused many issues, mostly because Corporate Arms have convinced small brains that "regulated" means it's secondary meaning. When guns are regulated and stupid people don't get a chance to own them legally, there will be very little gun violence.

This pack of ignorant gun owners stating we can never have regulation are the cause of all this. Also, this pack of ignorant non- gun owners seem to think the only answer is to ban all guns.

REGULATION is key and it always has been. The words of the Constitution have been tainted by the Weapons Manufacturers that flood the NRA with money who then flood the (R)ight Wing with money.

What we have today is a society of gun owners that openly justify national homicide cases because they are scared to lose their guns. And we have gun owners trying to say that "hammers" are relatable to guns.........proof they don't know the gravity of knowledge that SHOULD come with gun ownership.

I've always proposed forced education and grandfather clause out 100 round mags and silencers. Funny thing is when I propose to force education on gun owners, some say that infringes their right to have a gun

You don't even know what "well regulated militia" means, do you?

^See lol...........He thinks he does..........He thinks "regulated" means "well trained" even though that is the SECONDARY definition. He will claim, "it didn't use to be".........

Just another small brain that listened to the $ driven NRA.

The least regulated Countries have the most gun violence, fun fact!

But to counter, gun free zones have even more.

So yes on regulation, no on bans. Pretty simple.

still a moron on this board

^Don't be so hard on yourself kiddo. You will learn something some day. Less hemp would help you and would help US, the ones fighting for the right to ownership. People like you are the reason there is hemp oppression.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Almost 300 pages on a topic that speaks for itself.

If I want to own a fracking tank, it is none of your gaddamn business.

 

[AntiParty]

I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads. Hmmm. Lol.

All you have to do is learn both sides.

The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.

The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.

I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.

 

[AntiParty]

Almost 300 pages on a topic that speaks for itself.

If I want to own a fracking tank, it is none of your gaddamn business.

You can own a tank, but not the rounds.

And it's EVERYONE'S business. THE PEOPLE decide what powers any certain individual can have.

What small brains like you fail to notice is that your Liberty can infringe the Liberty of others.

Welcome to America and "Freedom isn't free"

 

[AntiParty]

I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads. Hmmm. Lol.

Is this an "anti-gun thread" or is it labeled "right to bear arms"?............not too smart there kid.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Almost 300 pages on a topic that speaks for itself.

If I want to own a fracking tank, it is none of your gaddamn business.

You can own a tank, but not the rounds.

And it's EVERYONE'S business. THE PEOPLE decide what powers any certain individual can have.

What small brains like you fail to notice is that your Liberty can infringe the Liberty of others.

Welcome to America and "Freedom isn't free"

The people my balls, this is a republic, not a democracy. If I have live rounds, that in no way infringes on your liberty.

 

[turtledude]

Guns are important in society. Lack of what was supposed to be a "well regulated militia" has caused many issues, mostly because Corporate Arms have convinced small brains that "regulated" means it's secondary meaning. When guns are regulated and stupid people don't get a chance to own them legally, there will be very little gun violence.

This pack of ignorant gun owners stating we can never have regulation are the cause of all this. Also, this pack of ignorant non- gun owners seem to think the only answer is to ban all guns.

REGULATION is key and it always has been. The words of the Constitution have been tainted by the Weapons Manufacturers that flood the NRA with money who then flood the (R)ight Wing with money.

What we have today is a society of gun owners that openly justify national homicide cases because they are scared to lose their guns. And we have gun owners trying to say that "hammers" are relatable to guns.........proof they don't know the gravity of knowledge that SHOULD come with gun ownership.

I've always proposed forced education and grandfather clause out 100 round mags and silencers. Funny thing is when I propose to force education on gun owners, some say that infringes their right to have a gun

You don't even know what "well regulated militia" means, do you?

^See lol...........He thinks he does..........He thinks "regulated" means "well trained" even though that is the SECONDARY definition. He will claim, "it didn't use to be".........

Just another small brain that listened to the $ driven NRA.

The least regulated Countries have the most gun violence, fun fact!

But to counter, gun free zones have even more.

So yes on regulation, no on bans. Pretty simple.

still a moron on this board

^Don't be so hard on yourself kiddo. You will learn something some day. Less hemp would help you and would help US, the ones fighting for the right to ownership. People like you are the reason there is hemp oppression.

its funny that someone who was seen as a complete troll on another board, remains a troll on another board

 

[Brain357]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

According to the US Constitution, the right to bear arms is absolutely absolute It shall not be infringed. It is more of a protected right than voting and just as fundamental.
Yes, convicted felons, the mentally deficient and children should not possess firearms. They should not vote either.
I am a pro-2nd Amendment poster here that is far from hysterical and about 60 IQ points ahead of you from the look of the uninformed drivel you post here.
As for your guy with the cat.... Perhaps the guy shouldn't have a gun. He did a stupid thing. Maybe he should lose his right to vote too?

How about that? How about we have "reasonable voting control"? You walk in to your polling place and the proctor asks you 10 questions about government. If you can't answer them and prove who you are, you don't vote.
That's reasonable, isn't it?

You people's arguments are so stupid and are generally always logical failures: there is no comparison between voting and owning a gun. Voting is not the same thing as having a firearm, which kills people or animals, in your possession. There is no comparison between voting and having a gun.

Owning guns protects the right to vote....just look at any dictatorship......they all vote....North Korea, Iraq under sadaam, Iran.........and no freedom......what protects freedom........free people with guns.....that protects the vote..........

Lots of countries with few guns have the right to vote.

 

[Brain357]

They must be defending against unarmed criminals? Where do you get that from? Does it say that anywhere in the study?

Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this. Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?" You can't just make a claim. You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.

Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.

There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
You can find it in here:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns. I'm familiar with the study. You need to show where it says what you claim it says. That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.

I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over. I'm sure you can find it.

I've followed your links and not found the statement. Frankly, I doubt it says what you keep quoting.

Kleck refers to the situation when the study was done...it isn't surprising that gun grabbers don't understand the history of gun control....they don't understand any history really, that is why they believe in big government, and disarming good people.......history for gun grabbers and the other liberals starts when they wake up in the morning.....

In the 90s, you didn't have the concealed carry laws that we have today....it took Florida to start that ball rolling....but....criminals still existed and still preyed on innocent people....remember when tourists in Florida were being killed....because the criminals knew they couldn't carry guns in Florida....and the criminals just followed the new tourists from the airport? So law abiding citizens who carried guns for defense against criminals, who then displayed that gun, drew that gun but did not shoot the gun....would not want to tell cops they were carrying a weapon "illegally" because thanks to the anti gunners, that would be a felony.......back in the 90s....

Today....not a problem like it was back then....my state...Illinois....we now have concealed carry.....so those law abiding citizens can now carry "legally"......which in and of itself stupid, since even back in the 90s the 2nd Amendment existed and any law barring the ability to carry a weapon for self defense was unconstitutional......but Brain will still beat that drum with that quote....I keep hoping to find the passage he found it in...to get the whole context....but other things Kleck has stated pretty much points out the opposite of what Brain says......

Let me explain this again bill. Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying. Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter. It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun. Good try though. But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.

 

[2aguy]

I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads. Hmmm. Lol.

All you have to do is learn both sides.

The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.

The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.

I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.

The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.

Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har

Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.

There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
You can find it in here:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns. I'm familiar with the study. You need to show where it says what you claim it says. That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.

I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over. I'm sure you can find it.

I've followed your links and not found the statement. Frankly, I doubt it says what you keep quoting.

Kleck refers to the situation when the study was done...it isn't surprising that gun grabbers don't understand the history of gun control....they don't understand any history really, that is why they believe in big government, and disarming good people.......history for gun grabbers and the other liberals starts when they wake up in the morning.....

In the 90s, you didn't have the concealed carry laws that we have today....it took Florida to start that ball rolling....but....criminals still existed and still preyed on innocent people....remember when tourists in Florida were being killed....because the criminals knew they couldn't carry guns in Florida....and the criminals just followed the new tourists from the airport? So law abiding citizens who carried guns for defense against criminals, who then displayed that gun, drew that gun but did not shoot the gun....would not want to tell cops they were carrying a weapon "illegally" because thanks to the anti gunners, that would be a felony.......back in the 90s....

Today....not a problem like it was back then....my state...Illinois....we now have concealed carry.....so those law abiding citizens can now carry "legally"......which in and of itself stupid, since even back in the 90s the 2nd Amendment existed and any law barring the ability to carry a weapon for self defense was unconstitutional......but Brain will still beat that drum with that quote....I keep hoping to find the passage he found it in...to get the whole context....but other things Kleck has stated pretty much points out the opposite of what Brain says......

Let me explain this again bill. Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying. Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter. It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun. Good try though. But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.

Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs. And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....

 

[ChrisL]

Brain357

Here is the link to the story I had posted on the other thread about the man who used more than 10 rounds in self defense that you think is "made up."

Gun Training Report 34 Interview with a Gunfighter

And here is the news report to corroborate his story. The man in the video is property owner Billy Jackson.

Police Shooting Was Self-Defense WLKY Home - WLKY Home

I recommend everyone watch the Interview with a Gunfighter video. It is just fascinating. Eleven rounds he used with a TEC 9 with a high capacity magazine. He ended up killing both perpetrators though. Post #2619, I believe.

I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads. Hmmm. Lol.

All you have to do is learn both sides.

The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.

The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.

I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.

Obviously you have a very poor understanding of the issue.

 

[ChrisL]

Guns are important in society. Lack of what was supposed to be a "well regulated militia" has caused many issues, mostly because Corporate Arms have convinced small brains that "regulated" means it's secondary meaning. When guns are regulated and stupid people don't get a chance to own them legally, there will be very little gun violence.

This pack of ignorant gun owners stating we can never have regulation are the cause of all this. Also, this pack of ignorant non- gun owners seem to think the only answer is to ban all guns.

REGULATION is key and it always has been. The words of the Constitution have been tainted by the Weapons Manufacturers that flood the NRA with money who then flood the (R)ight Wing with money.

What we have today is a society of gun owners that openly justify national homicide cases because they are scared to lose their guns. And we have gun owners trying to say that "hammers" are relatable to guns.........proof they don't know the gravity of knowledge that SHOULD come with gun ownership.

I've always proposed forced education and grandfather clause out 100 round mags and silencers. Funny thing is when I propose to force education on gun owners, some say that infringes their right to have a gun

You don't even know what "well regulated militia" means, do you?

^See lol...........He thinks he does..........He thinks "regulated" means "well trained" even though that is the SECONDARY definition. He will claim, "it didn't use to be".........

Just another small brain that listened to the $ driven NRA.

The least regulated Countries have the most gun violence, fun fact!

But to counter, gun free zones have even more.

So yes on regulation, no on bans. Pretty simple.

still a moron on this board

^Don't be so hard on yourself kiddo. You will learn something some day. Less hemp would help you and would help US, the ones fighting for the right to ownership. People like you are the reason there is hemp oppression.

Are you accusing TurtleDude of being a drug user? I think it is MUCH more likely that you would be the pot head. Lol!

 

[2aguy]

Here is kleck...again......

Armed Resistance to Crime The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun

The traditional conceptualization of victims as either passive targets or active collaborators overlooks another possible victim role, that of the active resister who does not initiate or accelerate any illegitimate activity, but uses various means of resistance for legitimate purposes, such as avoiding injury or property loss.

 

[ChrisL]

I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads. Hmmm. Lol.

Is this an "anti-gun thread" or is it labeled "right to bear arms"?............not too smart there kid.

You all take the anti rights position on every gun thread, regardless of whether it is pro or anti, therefore my statement stands.

 

[2aguy]

More Kleck....

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.

The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.

The one survey that is clearly not suitable for estimating the total number of defensive gun uses is the National Crime Victimization Survey. This is the only survey that has ever generated results implying an annual defensive-gun-use estimate under 700,000. Not surprisingly, it is a favorite of academic gun-control supporters. If one is to make even a pretense of empirically supporting the claim that defensive gun use is rare in America, one must rely on the National Crime Victimization Survey, warts and all.

That the National Crime Victimization Survey estimate is radically wrong is now beyond serious dispute. Ultimately, the only foundation one ever has for knowing that a measurement is wrong is that it is inconsistent with other measurements of the same phenomenon. There are now at least 15 other independent estimates of the frequency of defensive gun uses and every one of them is enormously larger than the National-Crime-Victimization-Survey estimate. Unanimity is rare in studies of crime, but this is one of those rare cases. Apparently, however, even unanimous and overwhelming evidence is not sufficient to dissuade the gun control advocacy organizations, such as Handgun Control, Inc., and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, that the National Crime Victimization Survey estimate is at least approximately valid and that defensive gun use is rare.

The numerous surveys yielding contrary estimates strongly support the view that the National-Crime-Victimization-Survey estimate is grossly erroneous.