Thoughts on the CDC hiding their 2.4 million defensive gun use research...

[del]

Here we have a look at the CDC hiding the results of 3 years of research into defensive gun use......the author points out that Dr. Kleck had to dig out the information from the CDC

GUN WATCH: CDC Failed to Report Strong Evidence of Defensive Gun Uses

The paragraph above does not rule out the surveys done by the CDC. It says that "more than 19 national surveys" not "19 national surveys". Were the authors aware of the CDC surveys done in 1996, 1997, and 1998, that essentially confirmed the estimates made by Kleck and Gertz in the 1995 paper?

The timing and size of the surveys done by the CDC is fascinating. They were done immediately after Kleck and Gertz published their paper. There were three of them. The one in 1996 was the largest ever done. 5,884 people were asked the DGU question. The total number of people asked in the three surveys done by the CDC was 12,870. All were asked the same question. It is as if a single very large survey was done, over three years. Kleck and Gertz' survey asked their DGU questions of 4,977 people.

Kleck goes into considerable detail about how his survey, done in 1993 (published in 1995) differs from the CDC survey. For example, in the CDC survey, only those people who admitted to having a gun in the home were asked the DGU question.
=======

Having read the Kleck and Gertz paper, I often wished that someone would do another survey, to broaden the sample, to provide more data.

Now we find the CDC did three such surveys. All of them validated the Kleck and Gertz survey. One large survey, such as the one by Kleck and Gertz, is indicative. Four of them show scientific replication and add to certainty. We were never told of the results of the confirming surveys done by the CDC.

Gary Kleck, as a scientist, a Democrat, and a proponent of a number of gun control measures, is careful not to cast aspersions on the CDC. He does not accuse anyone of malfeasance. He notes the surveys were done during the Clinton administration, and these findings would have worked against the gun control agenda of the administration. Someone at the CDC made the decision not to publish these results.

Kleck, while doing research, happened to come across the DGU question in a historical CDC survey, online, 21 years after the CDC surveys had been completed.

He was intrigued, and was able to find the original surveys done in 1996, 1997, 1998, and all the results.

It has to be gratifying to Dr. Kleck, to see his results validated after more than two decades. It may be infuriating to know these results were available from 1997 to 1999, and were never made public.

funny how it's never mentioned that the cdc's gun-related research budget was zeroed out in 1996 at the *request* of the nra, and now they're whining about the research not being publicized twenty years later

Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia



cry me a river

 

[2aguy]

Here we have a look at the CDC hiding the results of 3 years of research into defensive gun use......the author points out that Dr. Kleck had to dig out the information from the CDC

GUN WATCH: CDC Failed to Report Strong Evidence of Defensive Gun Uses

The paragraph above does not rule out the surveys done by the CDC. It says that "more than 19 national surveys" not "19 national surveys". Were the authors aware of the CDC surveys done in 1996, 1997, and 1998, that essentially confirmed the estimates made by Kleck and Gertz in the 1995 paper?

The timing and size of the surveys done by the CDC is fascinating. They were done immediately after Kleck and Gertz published their paper. There were three of them. The one in 1996 was the largest ever done. 5,884 people were asked the DGU question. The total number of people asked in the three surveys done by the CDC was 12,870. All were asked the same question. It is as if a single very large survey was done, over three years. Kleck and Gertz' survey asked their DGU questions of 4,977 people.

Kleck goes into considerable detail about how his survey, done in 1993 (published in 1995) differs from the CDC survey. For example, in the CDC survey, only those people who admitted to having a gun in the home were asked the DGU question.
=======

Having read the Kleck and Gertz paper, I often wished that someone would do another survey, to broaden the sample, to provide more data.

Now we find the CDC did three such surveys. All of them validated the Kleck and Gertz survey. One large survey, such as the one by Kleck and Gertz, is indicative. Four of them show scientific replication and add to certainty. We were never told of the results of the confirming surveys done by the CDC.

Gary Kleck, as a scientist, a Democrat, and a proponent of a number of gun control measures, is careful not to cast aspersions on the CDC. He does not accuse anyone of malfeasance. He notes the surveys were done during the Clinton administration, and these findings would have worked against the gun control agenda of the administration. Someone at the CDC made the decision not to publish these results.

Kleck, while doing research, happened to come across the DGU question in a historical CDC survey, online, 21 years after the CDC surveys had been completed.

He was intrigued, and was able to find the original surveys done in 1996, 1997, 1998, and all the results.

It has to be gratifying to Dr. Kleck, to see his results validated after more than two decades. It may be infuriating to know these results were available from 1997 to 1999, and were never made public.

funny how it's never mentioned that the cdc's gun-related research budget was zeroed out in 1996 at the *request* of the nra, and now they're whining about the research not being publicized twenty years later

Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia



cry me a river

Funny how you don't know what you are talking about.......that didn't happen......do you guys ever respond with actual research instead of just repeating the last anti gun talking point you heard?

No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence

Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.


Does it? Pointing out that “research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.

Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.

And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.

In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it. Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.

It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.

Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.

The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.

Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they don’t even pretend they not to hold pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.

-------

There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime — a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.

 

[DrLove]

And here is Kleck responding to the last two mopes trying to dismiss his study.....

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth

In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces. Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.

So what does research on the flaws in surveys of crime-related behaviors tell us? It consistently indicates that survey respondents underreport (1) crime victimization experiences, (2) gun ownership and (3) their own illegal behavior. While it is true that a few respondents overstate their crime-related experiences, they are greatly outnumbered by those who understate them, i.e. those who falsely deny having the experience when in fact they did. In sum, research tells us that surveys underestimate the frequency of crime victimizations, gun possession and self-reported illegal behavior. Yet DeFilippis and Hughes somehow manage to conclude that defensive gun uses—incidents that always involve the first two of those elements, and usually the third as well—are overestimated in surveys.

Like Hemenway, DeFilippis and Hughes fail to understand the most fundamental logical issue regarding whether surveys under or overestimate the frequency of defensive gun use. The point at issue is not whether there are “false positive” responses, i.e. respondents saying “yes, they used their gun defensively” when the correct answer was “no.” No one has ever disputed that there are some false positives in these surveys. But this by itself can tell us nothing about whether DGU estimates are too high or too low overall.

Even if false positives were numerous, false negatives (when a respondent falsely denies a DGU that actually occurred) could be (and, according to extensive research, are) even more common. In that case, survey estimates of DGU frequency would be too low, not the enormous overestimate that DeFilippis and Hughes believe in. Since neither of those authors nor Hemenway—nor any other critics for that matter—have ever made the slightest effort to estimate the number of false negatives, they cannot possibly know whether false positives outnumber false negatives and therefore have no logical foundation whatsoever for their claims that erroneous responses to DGU questions result in an overestimate of DGU frequency.

The authors’ discussion of possible flaws in survey estimates of DGU frequency is conspicuously one-sided, addressing only supposed flaws that could make the estimates too high—but none that could make the estimates too low. As mentioned above, they say nothing about the well-documented failure of many survey respondents to report criminal victimization, gun ownership or their own crimes. Likewise, they do not mention that our estimates did not include any DGUs by adolescent crime victims, even though adolescents are more likely to be crime victims than adults, and just as likely to carry guns, albeit illegally.

To summarize, notwithstanding DeFilippis and Hughes’ one-sided cherry-picking of the research evidence, surveys do not overestimate the number of DGUs (or anything else crime-related), and at least 18 national surveys have consistently confirmed that DGUs are very common, probably more common than criminal uses of guns.

As to DeFilippis and Hughes’ motives for working so long and hard to get the DGU estimate down, I believe the most likely explanation is that they hope that total gun prohibition will one day be politically achievable, and they recognize that high numbers of DGUs each year would present an enormous obstacle to persuading Americans that disarming noncriminals would be without serious costs. No one who supported only moderate controls but who opposed total prohibition would care about high estimates of DGUs by noncriminals, since they would be unaffected by moderate controls that do not disarm noncriminals, such as background checks.

Translation: This Douchebag pays me 50 cents per cut-n-paste

 

[2aguy]

And here is Kleck responding to the last two mopes trying to dismiss his study.....

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth

In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces. Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.

So what does research on the flaws in surveys of crime-related behaviors tell us? It consistently indicates that survey respondents underreport (1) crime victimization experiences, (2) gun ownership and (3) their own illegal behavior. While it is true that a few respondents overstate their crime-related experiences, they are greatly outnumbered by those who understate them, i.e. those who falsely deny having the experience when in fact they did. In sum, research tells us that surveys underestimate the frequency of crime victimizations, gun possession and self-reported illegal behavior. Yet DeFilippis and Hughes somehow manage to conclude that defensive gun uses—incidents that always involve the first two of those elements, and usually the third as well—are overestimated in surveys.

Like Hemenway, DeFilippis and Hughes fail to understand the most fundamental logical issue regarding whether surveys under or overestimate the frequency of defensive gun use. The point at issue is not whether there are “false positive” responses, i.e. respondents saying “yes, they used their gun defensively” when the correct answer was “no.” No one has ever disputed that there are some false positives in these surveys. But this by itself can tell us nothing about whether DGU estimates are too high or too low overall.

Even if false positives were numerous, false negatives (when a respondent falsely denies a DGU that actually occurred) could be (and, according to extensive research, are) even more common. In that case, survey estimates of DGU frequency would be too low, not the enormous overestimate that DeFilippis and Hughes believe in. Since neither of those authors nor Hemenway—nor any other critics for that matter—have ever made the slightest effort to estimate the number of false negatives, they cannot possibly know whether false positives outnumber false negatives and therefore have no logical foundation whatsoever for their claims that erroneous responses to DGU questions result in an overestimate of DGU frequency.

The authors’ discussion of possible flaws in survey estimates of DGU frequency is conspicuously one-sided, addressing only supposed flaws that could make the estimates too high—but none that could make the estimates too low. As mentioned above, they say nothing about the well-documented failure of many survey respondents to report criminal victimization, gun ownership or their own crimes. Likewise, they do not mention that our estimates did not include any DGUs by adolescent crime victims, even though adolescents are more likely to be crime victims than adults, and just as likely to carry guns, albeit illegally.

To summarize, notwithstanding DeFilippis and Hughes’ one-sided cherry-picking of the research evidence, surveys do not overestimate the number of DGUs (or anything else crime-related), and at least 18 national surveys have consistently confirmed that DGUs are very common, probably more common than criminal uses of guns.

As to DeFilippis and Hughes’ motives for working so long and hard to get the DGU estimate down, I believe the most likely explanation is that they hope that total gun prohibition will one day be politically achievable, and they recognize that high numbers of DGUs each year would present an enormous obstacle to persuading Americans that disarming noncriminals would be without serious costs. No one who supported only moderate controls but who opposed total prohibition would care about high estimates of DGUs by noncriminals, since they would be unaffected by moderate controls that do not disarm noncriminals, such as background checks.

Translation: This Douchebag pays me 50 cents per cut-n-paste

I wish......

But since you can't actually show facts or statistics that back up your claims, I guess that photo is the best you have....

 

[DrLove]

I wish......

But since you can't actually show facts or statistics that back up your claims, I guess that photo is the best you have....

Those have already been shown to you, and yet you keep prattling - Sad

 

[2aguy]

And here is Kleck responding to the last two mopes trying to dismiss his study.....

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth

In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces. Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.

So what does research on the flaws in surveys of crime-related behaviors tell us? It consistently indicates that survey respondents underreport (1) crime victimization experiences, (2) gun ownership and (3) their own illegal behavior. While it is true that a few respondents overstate their crime-related experiences, they are greatly outnumbered by those who understate them, i.e. those who falsely deny having the experience when in fact they did. In sum, research tells us that surveys underestimate the frequency of crime victimizations, gun possession and self-reported illegal behavior. Yet DeFilippis and Hughes somehow manage to conclude that defensive gun uses—incidents that always involve the first two of those elements, and usually the third as well—are overestimated in surveys.

Like Hemenway, DeFilippis and Hughes fail to understand the most fundamental logical issue regarding whether surveys under or overestimate the frequency of defensive gun use. The point at issue is not whether there are “false positive” responses, i.e. respondents saying “yes, they used their gun defensively” when the correct answer was “no.” No one has ever disputed that there are some false positives in these surveys. But this by itself can tell us nothing about whether DGU estimates are too high or too low overall.

Even if false positives were numerous, false negatives (when a respondent falsely denies a DGU that actually occurred) could be (and, according to extensive research, are) even more common. In that case, survey estimates of DGU frequency would be too low, not the enormous overestimate that DeFilippis and Hughes believe in. Since neither of those authors nor Hemenway—nor any other critics for that matter—have ever made the slightest effort to estimate the number of false negatives, they cannot possibly know whether false positives outnumber false negatives and therefore have no logical foundation whatsoever for their claims that erroneous responses to DGU questions result in an overestimate of DGU frequency.

The authors’ discussion of possible flaws in survey estimates of DGU frequency is conspicuously one-sided, addressing only supposed flaws that could make the estimates too high—but none that could make the estimates too low. As mentioned above, they say nothing about the well-documented failure of many survey respondents to report criminal victimization, gun ownership or their own crimes. Likewise, they do not mention that our estimates did not include any DGUs by adolescent crime victims, even though adolescents are more likely to be crime victims than adults, and just as likely to carry guns, albeit illegally.

To summarize, notwithstanding DeFilippis and Hughes’ one-sided cherry-picking of the research evidence, surveys do not overestimate the number of DGUs (or anything else crime-related), and at least 18 national surveys have consistently confirmed that DGUs are very common, probably more common than criminal uses of guns.

As to DeFilippis and Hughes’ motives for working so long and hard to get the DGU estimate down, I believe the most likely explanation is that they hope that total gun prohibition will one day be politically achievable, and they recognize that high numbers of DGUs each year would present an enormous obstacle to persuading Americans that disarming noncriminals would be without serious costs. No one who supported only moderate controls but who opposed total prohibition would care about high estimates of DGUs by noncriminals, since they would be unaffected by moderate controls that do not disarm noncriminals, such as background checks.

Translation: This Douchebag pays me 50 cents per cut-n-paste

What are you assholes going to do when the general public finally realize that it is democrats letting violent gun criminals out of jail that is driving our gun murder rate....?

The NRA fights to keep gun felons in jail, the democras fight to let them out.

The NRA trains police officers and other law enforcement agents, the democrats side with anti police groups to demonize the police.

The NRA trains civilians to use guns safely, the democrats fight to keep law abiding people un armed in the face of rapists, murderers and robbers.

The NRA teaches children how to stay away from and safe from unattended guns...the democrats release violent gun offenders into inner city communities where children are killed in drive by shootings.


The Untold History of Black NRA Gun Clubs + Civil Rights

Monroe’s Black Armed Guard wasn’t a subsidiary of the Communist Party, nor an independent organization like the Black Panther Party that would use similar tactics of arming their members later. In fact, “Black Armed Guard” was nothing more than a fancy name for an officially chartered National Rifle Association chapter.

His 1962 book, Negroes With Guns, was prophetic for the Black Power movement to come later on in the decade. But Williams is noteworthy for his lack of revolutionary fervor, at least early on. Williams was cautious to always maintain that the Black Armed Guard was not an insurrectionary organization, but one dedicated to providing defense to a group of people who were under attack and lacking in normal legal remedies:

-----

The NRA as an Organ of Individual and Collective Self-Defense
First, the narrative of the NRA as some sort of crypto-racist organization is simply false. In the first place, the NRA is a single-issue organization, which is how Harry Reid is able to obtain a “B” rating and get campaign cash from them, despite voting as a party-line Democrat on virtually every non-gun-related issue. More to the point, the NRA has historically opposed laws that were virtually tailor made to deny African-Americans the right to keep and bear arms. Many gun control laws to this day stem from the KKK's fear of armed and independent minorities. The Rosewood Massacre in 1923 – a bloodbath led by a white mob that resulted in the destruction of an entire black community in Florida – was a clear example of how an armed black people could prevent future KKK raids.

Second, the uptick in gun ownership and firearms acceptability in the black community isn’t an anomaly, but a reconnection with a deeper past stretching back to Reconstruction. The right to keep and carry arms was even mentioned in the infamous Supreme Court case of Scott v. Sandford, where the enslaved Dred Scott sued for his freedom. He lost that fight, but the words from that courtroom live on to this day.

 

[2aguy]

I wish......

But since you can't actually show facts or statistics that back up your claims, I guess that photo is the best you have....

Those have already been shown to you, and yet you keep prattling - Sad

No...you haven't shown anything..... you always claim you have but you never do...

 

[2aguy]

I wish......

But since you can't actually show facts or statistics that back up your claims, I guess that photo is the best you have....

Those have already been shown to you, and yet you keep prattling - Sad

What are you going to do when more Americans realize that democrats are letting violent gun criminals out of jail...

California Democrats hate the gun, not the gunman – Orange County Register

Now that Democrats have supermajorities in the California state Legislature, they’ve rolled into Sacramento with a zest for lowering the state’s prison population and have interpreted St. Augustine’s words of wisdom to mean, “Hate the gun, not the gunman.”

I say this because, once they finally took a break from preaching about the benefits of stricter gun control, the state Senate voted to loosen sentencing guidelines for criminals convicted of gun crimes.

Currently, California law requires anyone who uses a gun while committing a felony to have their sentence increased by 10 years or more in prison — on top of the normal criminal penalty. If enacted, Senate Bill 620 would eliminate that mandate.

The bill, which passed on a 22-14 party-line vote, with support only from Democrats, now heads to the state Assembly for consideration.

Republicans and the National Rifle Association have vowed to campaign against it.

Why have Democrats suddenly developed a soft spot for criminals convicted of gun crimes? The bill’s author, state Sen. Steve Bradford, D-Gardena, says that he was motivated to write the bill after a 17-year-old riding in a car involved in a drive-by shooting was sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though he claims that he wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger.

and for all those anti-gunners who want to know where criminals get guns....well...this law lowers the prison time for those who give guns to criminals.....

Why is that?

Prop. 57, for example, very deceptively and fundamentally changed the definition of what constitutes a “non-violent” offense.


supplying a firearm to a gang member,

l
felon obtaining a firearm,

discharging a firearm on school grounds

Chicago's grim murder trend blamed on light sentencing, misguided reforms



Lamar Harris had seven felony convictions and 43 arrests when he shot three Chicago police officers. The same week, Samuel Harviley, who had just been paroled after serving less than half of his sentence for armed carjacking, shot yet another of the Windy City’s finest.

Police officials, researchers and many elected leaders all agree that the pair were prime examples of the violent pool of criminals driving the city’s historically high crime rate. Ex-cons well-known to police and with a proven propensity for violence are being let out early from prison or let off lightly by judges, only to wreak havoc on the city, they say.
------

“We have five districts that are driving the crime in the city,” Johnson said in a recent radio interview. “And within those districts, there is a small subset of individuals who are responsible for those crimes. They have multiple arrests for gun offenses and until we start holding these people accountable [the problem will persist].”

----
Illinois is one of several states implementing recommendations from prison reform commissions to reduce or even eliminate mandatory minimum sentences. Those groups seek to reduce prison populations by as much as 25 percent.

The movement to slash sentences and free inmates is given momentum by controversial, police-involved shootings that galvanize communities, as well as protests by Black Lives Matter and civil rights groups. But shortening sentences of violent offenders puts both police and law-abiding residents of the inner city at risk, say law enforcement officials.

 

[2aguy]

I wish......

But since you can't actually show facts or statistics that back up your claims, I guess that photo is the best you have....

Those have already been shown to you, and yet you keep prattling - Sad

What are you going to do when normal Americans realize it is democrats, not the NRA who are releasing violent gun criminals back into our communities...?

John Boch: Lock Them Up! - The Truth About Guns

When you lock up violent criminals, you prevent them from victimizing other innocents. Crime in America dipped almost 50%after America abandoned “soft on crime” attitudes of the 1970s. Of course, many soft-on-crime politicians like Reitz have once more taken a love to “diversion” programs. And that’s how we get Robbie Patton (above), a local crime celebrity of sorts.

In 2015, he had an altercation at a Champaign Steak ‘n Shake restaurant commonly frequented by my friends and me. While none of us were enjoying a milkshake or steakburger at 5:30pm, Robbie was.

Robbie found himself in an altercation inside the restaurant. He felt one of his friends had been “disrespected”, so little Robbie went outside. He waited for the other group to emerge, pulled out of gun and tried to kill those other people.

He missed, and fled the scene with an Illinois State Trooper in hot pursuit. After a short, high-speed chase in a stolen car, Robbie crashed and escaped on foot.

Cops caught up with him. Local prosecutor Julia Reitz then went soft on little Robbie. She let him go to “boot camp”, even though that sentencing option is not supposed to be available for violent offenders. And squeezing off a bunch of shots at other people, trying to kill them, pretty much fits the bill as a violent crime.

After serving eight months on an eight-year sentence, Robbie returned to the streets of Champaign-Urbana. In less than two days, cops arrested him again for drugs and who knows what else. Not even three weeks after that, he’s illegally got agun. When someone “disrespects” another one of Robbie’s friends, guess what he does? He pulls out the gun and fires shots at those he believes responsible.




He misses his intended targets, but in the busy University of Illinois campustown district, his errant, not-so-late-night rounds found four innocent people within a block or two. George Korchev, the recent nursing school graduate due to start his career as a registered nurse at a hospital in Libertyville, IL, the following Monday morning, was struck and killed a blockaway from one of Robbie’s bullets.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It does not matter that Kleck was an "anti gunner". His "evidence" is not evidence.

Ad homming merely means that 2aguy once again is losing the argument.

 

[2aguy]

It does not matter that Kleck was an "anti gunner". His "evidence" is not evidence.

Ad homming merely means that 2aguy once again is losing the argument.

Yes.....and wishing it were not so doesn't make it so...... his research is backed up by 42 years of gun self defense studies you moron......including a study by anti gunners in the CDC and the clinton Department of Justice...

You have nothing..... you don't have facts, truth or reality on your side......

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kleck has been disproved long ago.

Nothing anyone says can make that different.

2aguy simply has nothing to stand on except his opinion, and who cares?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Wow....anti gunners say Kleck is wrong.....that's a shock...considering that the anti gunners who tried to duplicate Kleck's work,

I am not an anti-gunner you fucking moron.

You talk and act like one...

Another statist moron. Just because I do not blindly accept the results of a fatally flawed study I am an anti-gunner.

Can you people get any more stupid if you tried?

 

[Rustic]

Wow....anti gunners say Kleck is wrong.....that's a shock...considering that the anti gunners who tried to duplicate Kleck's work,

I am not an anti-gunner you fucking moron.

You talk and act like one...

Another statist moron. Just because I do not blindly accept the results of a fatally flawed study I am an anti-gunner.

Can you people get any more stupid if you tried?

There is no doubt you are anti-gun nutter, You’re very transparent because of your hypocrisy.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Wow....anti gunners say Kleck is wrong.....that's a shock...considering that the anti gunners who tried to duplicate Kleck's work,

I am not an anti-gunner you fucking moron.

You talk and act like one...

Another statist moron. Just because I do not blindly accept the results of a fatally flawed study I am an anti-gunner.

Can you people get any more stupid if you tried?

There is no doubt you are anti-gun nutter, You’re very transparent because of your hypocrisy.

Ahhh...more poor little statist, there is no question I have far more experience with firearms that you could ever dream of. Just give it, you are just making yourself look foolish again.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Wow....anti gunners say Kleck is wrong.....that's a shock...considering that the anti gunners who tried to duplicate Kleck's work,

I am not an anti-gunner you fucking moron.

You talk and act like one...

Another statist moron. Just because I do not blindly accept the results of a fatally flawed study I am an anti-gunner.

Can you people get any more stupid if you tried?

There is no doubt you are anti-gun nutter, You’re very transparent because of your hypocrisy.

I am feeling sorry for you, so I will give you a chance...

After you have been certified as an instructor for this gun, then come back and we can talk....

 

[Rustic]

Wow....anti gunners say Kleck is wrong.....that's a shock...considering that the anti gunners who tried to duplicate Kleck's work,

I am not an anti-gunner you fucking moron.

You talk and act like one...

Another statist moron. Just because I do not blindly accept the results of a fatally flawed study I am an anti-gunner.

Can you people get any more stupid if you tried?

There is no doubt you are anti-gun nutter, You’re very transparent because of your hypocrisy.

I am feeling sorry for you, so I will give you a chance...

After you have been certified as an instructor for this gun, then come back and we can talk....

I’m not a instructor on those but I have shot those many times. Though I could be if I wanted.
I do have a FFL license, have for 20+ years.

 

[2aguy]

Wow....anti gunners say Kleck is wrong.....that's a shock...considering that the anti gunners who tried to duplicate Kleck's work,

I am not an anti-gunner you fucking moron.

You talk and act like one...

Another statist moron. Just because I do not blindly accept the results of a fatally flawed study I am an anti-gunner.

Can you people get any more stupid if you tried?

It isn't one study, yet you continue to say "one study" because you are a useful tool of the gun grabbing movement....

You say "one study" and the study you mention isn't the study that is the point of this thread...the study in this thread was specifically done to attack the Gary Kleck study you hate..... and when the CDC did this study, they came to the same conclusion as Kleck.....

Here are all the other studies you are trying to ignore...that show you are a useful idiot of the gun grabbers...

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)

CDC...1996-1998... 2.46 million each of 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..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

Self defense with a gun:

 

[2aguy]

Kleck has been disproved long ago.

Nothing anyone says can make that different.

2aguy simply has nothing to stand on except his opinion, and who cares?

The CDC research shows he was right, as does the Department of Justice study...and, oh yeah...all of these other studies too...

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)

CDC...1996-1998... 2.46 million each of 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..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

Self defense with a gun:

 

[Rustic]

progressives do not Determine reality...