The Right To Bear Arms

[IlarMeilyr]

Here's a thought or three ...

The Second Amendment secures a right that pre-existed our Constitution. That right is the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose (minimally) of self-protection in one's own home.

The right is subject to SOME limitations and regulation by the government. But those governmental limitations and regulations on your right to have a gun in your own home cannot, properly, serve to effectively ban guns. (This means that if the state has a law that says you can have a gun but you need a license but the state's licensing law effectively denies you the ability to get licensed, then the law or laws violate the Constitution and are a legal nullity.)

This FEDERAL Government Amendment has now been "incorporated" which means that it DOES apply to STATE laws, too.

If we have a right that pre-dates the Constitution (i.e., the Constitution merely secures that right) and that right is associated with self-protection (and the protection of family) in one's own home, then the right of self-defense in one's own home is not something that any person should have to prove. It should be the requirement that the government prove that you were not protecting your family in your own home if that's where you happened to have made your stand against some (say) burglars or the like.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.

I spent time in state prison for a several violent felonies. I changed my ways, granted, but I also had political friends and a lot of money to get my permit back.

I've heard that it's very difficult and expensive to "buy" back your right. I've actually had a conversation on another forum with a poster who was allegedly convicted with at least one felony charge too.

I don't see the point of revoking the 2nd Amendment rights of a person who is considered a "felon" unless their crime has to do with a firearm. In some instances, writing a bad check can be considered a "felony."

I pistol whipped a man and robbed him of a large amount of cash and goods.

What's your deal? What point are you trying to make here?

If it weren't for my money and connections, I would not be armed. I am special. More special than you. I can carry a pistol where citizens can't. Even though I am a convicted violent felon.

 

[2aguy]

and kleck again on how guns are used....

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

Even under the best of circumstances, reporting the use of a gun for self-protection would be an extremely sensitive and legally controversial matter for either of two reasons. As with other forms of forceful resistance, the defensive act itself, regardless of the characteristics of any weapon used, might constitute an unlawful assault or at least the R might believe that others, including either legal authorities or the researchers, could regard it that way.

Resistance with a gun also involves additional elements of sensitivity. Because guns are legally regulated, a victim's possession of the weapon, either in general or at the time of the DGU, might itself be unlawful, either in fact or in the mind of a crime victim who used one. More likely, lay persons with a limited knowledge of the extremely complicated law of either self-defense or firearms regulation are unlikely to know for sure whether their defensive actions or their gun possession was lawful.

In the context of a non anonymous survey conducted by the federal government, an R who reports a DGU may believe that he is placing himself in serious legal jeopardy. For example, consider the issue of the location of crimes. For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are relatively easy to get)[28], the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony.

In at least ten states, it is punishable by a punitively mandatory minimum prison sentence.[29] Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home,[30] i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,[31] the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.

Even for crimes that occurred in the victim's home, such as a burglary, possession of a gun would still often be unlawful or of unknown legal status; because the R had not complied with or could not be sure he had complied with all legal requirements concerning registration of the gun's acquisition or possession, permits for purchase, licensing of home possession, storage requirements, and so on. In light of all these considerations, it may be unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of Rs who have used a gun defensively would be willing to report it to NCVS interviewers.

Mr. Branca....can you comment on defensive gun use and wether most of those using guns for defense are criminals or law abiding citizens....thank you....


Andrew Branca Law of Self Defense Interview Seminar

 

[Ernie S.]

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
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.....

So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority. You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?

They are called felons.

Why are they called "felons?" Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights? So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation? So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves? For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes? Ridiculous. This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens. The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.

Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon? Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun. So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.

Brainless . . . Bill is trying to explain to you that some of the self defense shooters might be considered "felons" because of an illegal weapon possession charge during said self defense shooting, such as in a state where you are ONLY allowed stand your ground option if you are protecting your home.

However, say you have a gun on your person, and you are with your children, and a gunman comes up to your car and demands you get out of the car because he is going to take it! Are you going to use that gun to protect your children, regardless of any stupid laws?

And you are saying that would be the case in the majority of gun defenses? Really? Most gun owners are felons? Because unless it does then he's just explaining a small minority of defenses which does very little. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

You STILL have not provided context or a cited quote from Kleck. I'm beginning to think you made up or altered the quote to serve your purpose. Put up or shut up, as they say.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.

I spent time in state prison for a several violent felonies. I changed my ways, granted, but I also had political friends and a lot of money to get my permit back.

I've heard that it's very difficult and expensive to "buy" back your right. I've actually had a conversation on another forum with a poster who was allegedly convicted with at least one felony charge too.

I don't see the point of revoking the 2nd Amendment rights of a person who is considered a "felon" unless their crime has to do with a firearm. In some instances, writing a bad check can be considered a "felony."

I pistol whipped a man and robbed him of a large amount of cash and goods.

What's your deal? What point are you trying to make here?

That he is now legally armed and we should feel good about that.

My firearms are registered, and some of my ammo is even counted in accordance with my work. The gun I used to pistol whip my victim? A "throwaway." I was in uniform though when I committed my crimes, and armed with a government-issued weapon.

 

[Ernie S.]

Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.

There is nothing dishonest. It's just you aren't smart enough to get very simple concepts. Kleck says the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity. If you believe in Kleck's numbers for defensive uses then you have to accept this also. Bill is trying to candy coat what Kleck said, but his example still would only effect a small minority of Kleck's defenses. So the vast majority must be involved in some sort of actual criminal activity or be a felon who can't own a gun. It's all really very simple.

You keep saying this, but yet NOBODY has seen you link to this data. Supply a link to this claim of your's or else it isn't true.

Wow I just posted a link to it for you last night. Talk about dishonest. And it was originally posted by Bill so yes people have seen it.

No one was able to find the quote at the link provided.

 

[Brain357]

and kleck again on how guns are used....

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

Even under the best of circumstances, reporting the use of a gun for self-protection would be an extremely sensitive and legally controversial matter for either of two reasons. As with other forms of forceful resistance, the defensive act itself, regardless of the characteristics of any weapon used, might constitute an unlawful assault or at least the R might believe that others, including either legal authorities or the researchers, could regard it that way.

Resistance with a gun also involves additional elements of sensitivity. Because guns are legally regulated, a victim's possession of the weapon, either in general or at the time of the DGU, might itself be unlawful, either in fact or in the mind of a crime victim who used one. More likely, lay persons with a limited knowledge of the extremely complicated law of either self-defense or firearms regulation are unlikely to know for sure whether their defensive actions or their gun possession was lawful.

In the context of a non anonymous survey conducted by the federal government, an R who reports a DGU may believe that he is placing himself in serious legal jeopardy. For example, consider the issue of the location of crimes. For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are relatively easy to get)[28], the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony.

In at least ten states, it is punishable by a punitively mandatory minimum prison sentence.[29] Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home,[30] i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,[31] the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.

Even for crimes that occurred in the victim's home, such as a burglary, possession of a gun would still often be unlawful or of unknown legal status; because the R had not complied with or could not be sure he had complied with all legal requirements concerning registration of the gun's acquisition or possession, permits for purchase, licensing of home possession, storage requirements, and so on. In light of all these considerations, it may be unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of Rs who have used a gun defensively would be willing to report it to NCVS interviewers.

That is why the NCVS would weed out the criminals and why their numbers are more accurate for defenses by law abiding citizens.

 

[2aguy]

and kleck again on how guns are used....

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

Even under the best of circumstances, reporting the use of a gun for self-protection would be an extremely sensitive and legally controversial matter for either of two reasons. As with other forms of forceful resistance, the defensive act itself, regardless of the characteristics of any weapon used, might constitute an unlawful assault or at least the R might believe that others, including either legal authorities or the researchers, could regard it that way.

Resistance with a gun also involves additional elements of sensitivity. Because guns are legally regulated, a victim's possession of the weapon, either in general or at the time of the DGU, might itself be unlawful, either in fact or in the mind of a crime victim who used one. More likely, lay persons with a limited knowledge of the extremely complicated law of either self-defense or firearms regulation are unlikely to know for sure whether their defensive actions or their gun possession was lawful.

In the context of a non anonymous survey conducted by the federal government, an R who reports a DGU may believe that he is placing himself in serious legal jeopardy. For example, consider the issue of the location of crimes. For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are relatively easy to get)[28], the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony.

In at least ten states, it is punishable by a punitively mandatory minimum prison sentence.[29] Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home,[30] i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,[31] the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.

Even for crimes that occurred in the victim's home, such as a burglary, possession of a gun would still often be unlawful or of unknown legal status; because the R had not complied with or could not be sure he had complied with all legal requirements concerning registration of the gun's acquisition or possession, permits for purchase, licensing of home possession, storage requirements, and so on. In light of all these considerations, it may be unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of Rs who have used a gun defensively would be willing to report it to NCVS interviewers.

That is why the NCVS would weed out the criminals and why their numbers are more accurate for defenses by law abiding citizens.

the NCVS is not even close to being accurate...it is the least reliable of all of the other 19 studies.....that's right, 19 other studies.....

 

[Esmeralda]

Thankfully, I've never taken another's life. Have been shot at however.

Ya know, this is kind of a side note here. But I have killed a lot of people. And it doesn't phase me in the least. I always hear how about it should do this or that to your mind your soul whatever. The thing that breaks my heart the most is a stupid stray cat I had to abandon.

 

[Brain357]

So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority. You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?

They are called felons.

Why are they called "felons?" Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights? So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation? So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves? For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes? Ridiculous. This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens. The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.

Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon? Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun. So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.

Brainless . . . Bill is trying to explain to you that some of the self defense shooters might be considered "felons" because of an illegal weapon possession charge during said self defense shooting, such as in a state where you are ONLY allowed stand your ground option if you are protecting your home.

However, say you have a gun on your person, and you are with your children, and a gunman comes up to your car and demands you get out of the car because he is going to take it! Are you going to use that gun to protect your children, regardless of any stupid laws?

And you are saying that would be the case in the majority of gun defenses? Really? Most gun owners are felons? Because unless it does then he's just explaining a small minority of defenses which does very little. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

You STILL have not provided context or a cited quote from Kleck. I'm beginning to think you made up or altered the quote to serve your purpose. Put up or shut up, as they say.

You people should be pretty embarrassed that I provided a link and you aren't competent enough to even find it on the page. Sad really. Kleck is explaining why he has more defenses than there are crimes. He does that by explaining that in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity so these attempted crimes go unreported:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
Hemenway argued that the NSDS estimates are implausible because this survey implied a number of DGUs occurring in connection with burglaries that exceeded the total number of burglaries of occupied residences estimated by the NCVS, and thus the DGU estimate was impossible, or at least implausibly high (p. 1441). This argument rested on an unstated assumption that the universe of DGU events sampled by the NSDS is a subset of the universe of crime events covered by the NCVS. However, Kleck and Gertz had explicitly warned in their paper that “a large share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to the NCVS or police” (1995, p. 167). 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. Once it is recognized that many DGU events are outside the realm of crime incidents effectively covered by the NCVS, it is logically impossible to treat any NCVS estimates as imposing an upper limit on how many DGUs there plausibly could be.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Thankfully, I've never taken another's life. Have been shot at however.

Ya know, this is kind of a side note here. But I have killed a lot of people. And it doesn't phase me in the least. I always hear how about it should do this or that to your mind your soul whatever. The thing that breaks my heart the most is a stupid stray cat I had to abandon.

Or, let's spot the sociopath. Whichever.

 

[Brain357]

and kleck again on how guns are used....

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

Even under the best of circumstances, reporting the use of a gun for self-protection would be an extremely sensitive and legally controversial matter for either of two reasons. As with other forms of forceful resistance, the defensive act itself, regardless of the characteristics of any weapon used, might constitute an unlawful assault or at least the R might believe that others, including either legal authorities or the researchers, could regard it that way.

Resistance with a gun also involves additional elements of sensitivity. Because guns are legally regulated, a victim's possession of the weapon, either in general or at the time of the DGU, might itself be unlawful, either in fact or in the mind of a crime victim who used one. More likely, lay persons with a limited knowledge of the extremely complicated law of either self-defense or firearms regulation are unlikely to know for sure whether their defensive actions or their gun possession was lawful.

In the context of a non anonymous survey conducted by the federal government, an R who reports a DGU may believe that he is placing himself in serious legal jeopardy. For example, consider the issue of the location of crimes. For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are relatively easy to get)[28], the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony.

In at least ten states, it is punishable by a punitively mandatory minimum prison sentence.[29] Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home,[30] i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,[31] the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.

Even for crimes that occurred in the victim's home, such as a burglary, possession of a gun would still often be unlawful or of unknown legal status; because the R had not complied with or could not be sure he had complied with all legal requirements concerning registration of the gun's acquisition or possession, permits for purchase, licensing of home possession, storage requirements, and so on. In light of all these considerations, it may be unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of Rs who have used a gun defensively would be willing to report it to NCVS interviewers.

That is why the NCVS would weed out the criminals and why their numbers are more accurate for defenses by law abiding citizens.

the NCVS is not even close to being accurate...it is the least reliable of all of the other 19 studies.....that's right, 19 other studies.....

If you include defenses by criminals.

 

[Esmeralda]

Thankfully, I've never taken another's life. Have been shot at however.

Ya know, this is kind of a side note here. But I have killed a lot of people. And it doesn't phase me in the least. I always hear how about it should do this or that to your mind your soul whatever. The thing that breaks my heart the most is a stupid stray cat I had to abandon.

Or, let's spot the sociopath. Whichever.

Oh, I see. So you are a troll and a sociopath? Okay. Whatever.

 

[2aguy]

A detailed look at how bad the National Crime Victimization Survey is......read this to understand how bad the National Crime Victimization Survey actually is at determining defensive gun uses....

A. THE NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY (NCVS)

However consistent the evidence may be concerning the effectiveness of armed victim resistance, there are some who minimize its significance by insisting that it is rare.[15] This assertion is invariably based entirely on a single source of information, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).

Data from the NCVS imply that each year there are only about 68,000 defensive uses of guns in connection with assaults and robberies,[16] or about 80,000 to 82,000 if one adds in uses linked with household burglaries.[17] These figures are less than one ninth of the estimates implied by the results of at least thirteen other surveys, summarized in Table 1, most of which have been previously reported.[18] The NCVS estimates imply that about 0.09 of 1% of U.S. households experience a defensive gun use (DGU) in any one year, compared to the Mauser survey's estimate of 3.79% of households over a five year period, or about 0.76% in any one year, assuming an even distribution over the five year period, and no repeat uses.[19]

The strongest evidence that a measurement is inaccurate is that it is inconsistent with many other independent measurements or observations of the same phenomenon; indeed, some would argue that this is ultimately the only way of knowing that a measurement is wrong. Therefore, one might suppose that the gross inconsistency of the NCVS-based estimates with all other known estimates, each derived from sources with no known flaws even remotely substantial enough to account for nine-to-one, or more, discrepancies, would be sufficient to persuade any serious scholar that the NCVS estimates are unreliable.

Apparently it is not, since the Bureau of Justice Statistics continues to disseminate their DGU estimates as if they were valid,[20] and scholars continue to cite the NCVS estimates as being at least as reasonable as those from the gun surveys.[21] Similarly, the editors of a report on violence conducted for the prestigious National Academy of Sciences have uncritically accepted the validity of the NCVS estimate as being at least equal to that of all of the alternative estimates.[22] In effect, even the National Academy of Sciences gives no more weight to estimates from numerous independent sources than to an estimate derived from a single source which is, as explained below, singularly ill-suited to the task of estimating DGU frequency.

This sort of bland and spurious even-handedness is misleading. For example, Reiss and Roth withheld from their readers that there were at least nineother estimates contradicting the NCVS-based estimate; instead they vaguely alluded only to "a number of surveys,"[23] as did Cook,[24] and they down played the estimates from the other surveys on the basis of flaws which they only speculated those surveys might have. Even as speculations, these scholars' conjectures were conspicuously one-sided, focusing solely on possible flaws whose correction would bring the estimate down, while ignoring obvious flaws, such as respondents (Rs) forgetting or intentionally concealing DGUs, whose correction would push the estimate up. Further, die speculations, even if true, would be wholly inadequate to account for more than a small share of the enormous nine-to-one or more discrepancy between the NCVS-based estimates and all other estimates. For example, the effects of telescoping can be completely cancelled out by the effects of memory loss and other recall failure, and even if they are not, they cannot account for more than a tiny share of a discrepancy of nine-to-one or more.

Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to Rs as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Rs are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact.[25] In short, it is made very clear to Rs that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the Rs and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be re contacted.

Even under the best of circumstances, reporting the use of a gun for self-protection would be an extremely sensitive and legally controversial matter for either of two reasons. As with other forms of forceful resistance, the defensive act itself, regardless of the characteristics of any weapon used, might constitute an unlawful assault or at least the R might believe that others, including either legal authorities or the researchers, could regard it that way. Resistance with a gun also involves additional elements of sensitivity. Because guns are legally regulated, a victim's possession of the weapon, either in general or at the time of the DGU, might itself be unlawful, either in fact or in the mind of a crime victim who used one. More likely, lay persons with a limited knowledge of the extremely complicated law of either self-defense or firearms regulation are unlikely to know for sure whether their defensive actions or their gun possession was lawful.

It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves.[26] In short, Rs are merely given the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for an R to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident.

Further, Rs in the NCVS are not even asked the general self-protection question unless they already independently indicated that they had been a victim of a crime. This means that any DGUs associated with crimes the Rs did not want to talk about would remain hidden.

It has been estimated that the NCVS may catch less than one-twelfth of spousal assaults and one-thirty-third of rapes,[27] thereby missing nearly all DGUs associated with such crimes.

In the context of a non anonymous survey conducted by the federal government, an R who reports a DGU may believe that he is placing himself in serious legal jeopardy. For example, consider the issue of the location of crimes. For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are relatively easy to get)[28], the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony. In at least ten states, it is punishable by a punitively mandatory minimum prison sentence.[29] Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home,[30] i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,[31] the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.

Even for crimes that occurred in the victim's home, such as a burglary, possession of a gun would still often be unlawful or of unknown legal status; because the R had not complied with or could not be sure he had complied with all legal requirements concerning registration of the gun's acquisition or possession, permits for purchase, licensing of home possession, storage requirements, and so on. In light of all these considerations, it may be unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of Rs who have used a gun defensively would be willing to report it to NCVS interviewers.

The NCVS was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which otherpeople have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU.

It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection.

 

[2aguy]

and kleck again on how guns are used....

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

Even under the best of circumstances, reporting the use of a gun for self-protection would be an extremely sensitive and legally controversial matter for either of two reasons. As with other forms of forceful resistance, the defensive act itself, regardless of the characteristics of any weapon used, might constitute an unlawful assault or at least the R might believe that others, including either legal authorities or the researchers, could regard it that way.

Resistance with a gun also involves additional elements of sensitivity. Because guns are legally regulated, a victim's possession of the weapon, either in general or at the time of the DGU, might itself be unlawful, either in fact or in the mind of a crime victim who used one. More likely, lay persons with a limited knowledge of the extremely complicated law of either self-defense or firearms regulation are unlikely to know for sure whether their defensive actions or their gun possession was lawful.

In the context of a non anonymous survey conducted by the federal government, an R who reports a DGU may believe that he is placing himself in serious legal jeopardy. For example, consider the issue of the location of crimes. For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are relatively easy to get)[28], the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony.

In at least ten states, it is punishable by a punitively mandatory minimum prison sentence.[29] Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home,[30] i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,[31] the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.

Even for crimes that occurred in the victim's home, such as a burglary, possession of a gun would still often be unlawful or of unknown legal status; because the R had not complied with or could not be sure he had complied with all legal requirements concerning registration of the gun's acquisition or possession, permits for purchase, licensing of home possession, storage requirements, and so on. In light of all these considerations, it may be unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of Rs who have used a gun defensively would be willing to report it to NCVS interviewers.

That is why the NCVS would weed out the criminals and why their numbers are more accurate for defenses by law abiding citizens.

the NCVS is not even close to being accurate...it is the least reliable of all of the other 19 studies.....that's right, 19 other studies.....

If you include defenses by criminals.

Andrew Branca Law of Self Defense Interview Seminar

 

[Jackinthebox]

Thankfully, I've never taken another's life. Have been shot at however.

Ya know, this is kind of a side note here. But I have killed a lot of people. And it doesn't phase me in the least. I always hear how about it should do this or that to your mind your soul whatever. The thing that breaks my heart the most is a stupid stray cat I had to abandon.

Or, let's spot the sociopath. Whichever.

Oh, I see. So you are a troll and a sociopath? Okay. Whatever.

And I speak truth too. So put that in your pipe and let it sizzle.

 

[Ernie S.]

Why are they called "felons?" Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights? So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation? So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves? For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes? Ridiculous. This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens. The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.

Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon? Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun. So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.

Brainless . . . Bill is trying to explain to you that some of the self defense shooters might be considered "felons" because of an illegal weapon possession charge during said self defense shooting, such as in a state where you are ONLY allowed stand your ground option if you are protecting your home.

However, say you have a gun on your person, and you are with your children, and a gunman comes up to your car and demands you get out of the car because he is going to take it! Are you going to use that gun to protect your children, regardless of any stupid laws?

And you are saying that would be the case in the majority of gun defenses? Really? Most gun owners are felons? Because unless it does then he's just explaining a small minority of defenses which does very little. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

You STILL have not provided context or a cited quote from Kleck. I'm beginning to think you made up or altered the quote to serve your purpose. Put up or shut up, as they say.

You people should be pretty embarrassed that I provided a link and you aren't competent enough to even find it on the page. Sad really. Kleck is explaining why he has more defenses than there are crimes. He does that by explaining that in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity so these attempted crimes go unreported:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
Hemenway argued that the NSDS estimates are implausible because this survey implied a number of DGUs occurring in connection with burglaries that exceeded the total number of burglaries of occupied residences estimated by the NCVS, and thus the DGU estimate was impossible, or at least implausibly high (p. 1441). This argument rested on an unstated assumption that the universe of DGU events sampled by the NSDS is a subset of the universe of crime events covered by the NCVS. However, Kleck and Gertz had explicitly warned in their paper that “a large share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to the NCVS or police” (1995, p. 167). 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. Once it is recognized that many DGU events are outside the realm of crime incidents effectively covered by the NCVS, it is logically impossible to treat any NCVS estimates as imposing an upper limit on how many DGUs there plausibly could be.

OK a supposition with no factual data. I have had a valid pistol permit for 30 years or so as, I claim, most of the people who have been involved in a DGU defense. (Prove otherwise) Some of my weapons are registered but many are not. No state I have ever lived in required registration for all weapons; only those sold by a dealer.

Registering several of my weapons would be problematic. 2 are antiques, one is a Japanese army sniper rifle, one I found wrapped in a blanked standing against a tree out in the woods and 6 were left to me by my father. I own all of them legally though 2, perhaps 3, have been used to take a human life

For Kleck to assume DGU is typically felonious is utter bullshit. He doesn't back up his supposition with fact as I assumed, given the lack of context you provided. You and he are full of shit.

 

[ChrisL]

and kleck again on how guns are used....

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

Even under the best of circumstances, reporting the use of a gun for self-protection would be an extremely sensitive and legally controversial matter for either of two reasons. As with other forms of forceful resistance, the defensive act itself, regardless of the characteristics of any weapon used, might constitute an unlawful assault or at least the R might believe that others, including either legal authorities or the researchers, could regard it that way.

Resistance with a gun also involves additional elements of sensitivity. Because guns are legally regulated, a victim's possession of the weapon, either in general or at the time of the DGU, might itself be unlawful, either in fact or in the mind of a crime victim who used one. More likely, lay persons with a limited knowledge of the extremely complicated law of either self-defense or firearms regulation are unlikely to know for sure whether their defensive actions or their gun possession was lawful.

In the context of a non anonymous survey conducted by the federal government, an R who reports a DGU may believe that he is placing himself in serious legal jeopardy. For example, consider the issue of the location of crimes. For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are relatively easy to get)[28], the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony.

In at least ten states, it is punishable by a punitively mandatory minimum prison sentence.[29] Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home,[30] i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,[31] the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.

Even for crimes that occurred in the victim's home, such as a burglary, possession of a gun would still often be unlawful or of unknown legal status; because the R had not complied with or could not be sure he had complied with all legal requirements concerning registration of the gun's acquisition or possession, permits for purchase, licensing of home possession, storage requirements, and so on. In light of all these considerations, it may be unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of Rs who have used a gun defensively would be willing to report it to NCVS interviewers.

That is why the NCVS would weed out the criminals and why their numbers are more accurate for defenses by law abiding citizens.

the NCVS is not even close to being accurate...it is the least reliable of all of the other 19 studies.....that's right, 19 other studies.....

If you include defenses by criminals.

Even so, we know not ALL of these would be criminals or even a majority (that's just stupid). The point is that, because of some stupid laws which make it illegal for a person to carry a weapon for self defense purposes, they might be CONSIDERED criminals at some point during an investigation. Does that negate the fact that they were able to save their own lives or perhaps the lives of others? No it does not, so again, brainless, you are pointless.

 

[ChrisL]

Thankfully, I've never taken another's life. Have been shot at however.

Ya know, this is kind of a side note here. But I have killed a lot of people. And it doesn't phase me in the least. I always hear how about it should do this or that to your mind your soul whatever. The thing that breaks my heart the most is a stupid stray cat I had to abandon.

Or, let's spot the sociopath. Whichever.

Oh, I see. So you are a troll and a sociopath? Okay. Whatever.

I have to agree with Esmeralda on this one. I think this poster is trolling as well.

 

[ChrisL]

Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon? Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun. So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.

Brainless . . . Bill is trying to explain to you that some of the self defense shooters might be considered "felons" because of an illegal weapon possession charge during said self defense shooting, such as in a state where you are ONLY allowed stand your ground option if you are protecting your home.

However, say you have a gun on your person, and you are with your children, and a gunman comes up to your car and demands you get out of the car because he is going to take it! Are you going to use that gun to protect your children, regardless of any stupid laws?

And you are saying that would be the case in the majority of gun defenses? Really? Most gun owners are felons? Because unless it does then he's just explaining a small minority of defenses which does very little. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

You STILL have not provided context or a cited quote from Kleck. I'm beginning to think you made up or altered the quote to serve your purpose. Put up or shut up, as they say.

You people should be pretty embarrassed that I provided a link and you aren't competent enough to even find it on the page. Sad really. Kleck is explaining why he has more defenses than there are crimes. He does that by explaining that in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity so these attempted crimes go unreported:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
Hemenway argued that the NSDS estimates are implausible because this survey implied a number of DGUs occurring in connection with burglaries that exceeded the total number of burglaries of occupied residences estimated by the NCVS, and thus the DGU estimate was impossible, or at least implausibly high (p. 1441). This argument rested on an unstated assumption that the universe of DGU events sampled by the NSDS is a subset of the universe of crime events covered by the NCVS. However, Kleck and Gertz had explicitly warned in their paper that “a large share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to the NCVS or police” (1995, p. 167). 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. Once it is recognized that many DGU events are outside the realm of crime incidents effectively covered by the NCVS, it is logically impossible to treat any NCVS estimates as imposing an upper limit on how many DGUs there plausibly could be.

OK a supposition with no factual data. I have had a valid pistol permit for 30 years or so as, I claim, most of the people who have been involved in a DGU defense. (Prove otherwise) Some of my weapons are registered but many are not. No state I have ever lived in required registration for all weapons; only those sold by a dealer.

Registering several of my weapons would be problematic. 2 are antiques, one is a Japanese army sniper rifle, one I found wrapped in a blanked standing against a tree out in the woods and 6 were left to me by my father. I own all of them legally though 2, perhaps 3, have been used to take a human life

For Kleck to assume DGU is typically felonious is utter bullshit. He doesn't back up his supposition with fact as I assumed, given the lack of context you provided. You and he are full of shit.

I guess brainless feels that if a person uses his/her weapon in a "non-designated" area for self defense, that makes them a criminal and they should not be able to defend themselves against attackers. Also, that's a good point, that is only an assumption made for which there is no evidence. Some people might simply not want to have to deal with the problems they will have to face in announcing that they are a gun owner in today's prejudicial environment against gun owners.