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

[SavannahMann]

Has anyone here ever thought this ridiculous 2.4 million a year figure through?

Do you realize that means that over 275 times every hour of every day someone uses a gun to defend themselves.

Now lets be very generous here and say that 90% of the time just showing the gun is enough. I personally think that's nonsense, there is no way 9 out of 10 armed desperate people run from a gun but like I said, I'm being generous.

That's 27+ shooting victims an hour, every hour, all day long. 650 people showing up at emergency rooms with unexplained holes in them every day.

250,000 extra gunshot victims a year.

Where are they?

Not if you see where Kleck got the number. One of the biggest survey sample was criminals, convicts. Kleck went to prisons and interviewed the convicts and asked them how often the presence of a gun, perceived, suspected, or actually seen, caused them to change their plans.

For muggers, it was far more often, especially in states where concealed carry was more prevalent. For car hackers, again, it was more prevalent, in the same states.

In Georgia, roughly speaking, one in ten residents are licensed to carry concealed. That means that the criminal has a roughly ten percent chance of coming across someone who is legally allowed to be carrying a gun. One in ten victims is liable to be armed.

Kleck took the discrimination numbers from the criminals, and added it to the people who said they had reached for a gun, and someone had fled. And the times that people actually pulled it, and the people who fired.

We often hear that we should ban guns if it can save just one life. Or we should do some other thing even if it can only save one life. We certainly have done a lot more, for a few people every year haven’t we? Airbags. We had a massive airbag recall because a handful of people had died over several years because of defective airbags.

But what about the other way around? Can we ban guns if those guns save just one life? If as Kleck said that the suspected presence of a gun deterred a rapist from attacking some woman, can we dare ban the guns?

We all know that airbags can kill people. Especially smaller children, or older frail people. The sudden explosive inflation is rather violent. Yet, we do not ban airbags. We don’t even decide to leave it up to the customer, letting him or her decide if he wants one. Because the probability is that the airbag is more likely to save a life, than end it.

If you accept how Kleck got his numbers as reasonably valid, and if rapists decide not to attack a woman even once. Not even all the rapists, but lets say half of the rapists decide to not attack a woman who may have a gun once per year, then haven’t you prevented a rape each time that decision is made?

We tell women to fight back. To use pepper spray, to scream for help, to avoid situations where they are alone, and vulnerable. We’ve had the Rape Whistle, the air horn, and all the other silly shit. But lets be honest, you are going to be in those situations sooner or later this year ladies. You are going to have a situation where you are approaching a car at night, when the lighting is not good. Or when you are approaching your door without being able to scan the area, or are home alone when someone is creeping around outside.

Women go to self defense classes to learn how to fight. Women go to awareness classes to learn how to spot dangerous situations and areas. Men are asked to escort the women from time to time. At least they were when I was younger.

Kleck argued that after talking to those rapists in prison, a goodly number were prevented not by rape whistles, or air horns, or pepper spray. A goodly number were prevented when the rapist looked at the women, or the area, and decided that someone might have a gun, and the Rapist moved on. Perhaps he picked someone else perhaps not.

The same is true of robberies, assaults, and the rest according to Kleck.

But that is an interesting standard isn’t it? Let’s apply it to immunizations. Can you prove that your child is going to be exposed to those diseases? Can you prove that my child is going to be exposed to the diseases? No, of course you can’t. But we know that those diseases exist, and it is possible, so we immunize to prevent the disease. Every year people go out and get the Flu Vaccine. The Flu shows up anyway. The next year, everyone is out getting it again. It might not protect you, and it might only make the flu less severe in your case, or the vaccine might be a bad match. But we still line up and get our shots don’t we?

How many cases of Flu does the vaccine prevent? But it prevents some, so we get them.

So how many rapes, robberies, assaults, and thefts do guns prevent. I don’t know. We know they prevent some. The criminals told us that much through Kleck. Kleck used an extrapolation to come up with a number. Perhaps he’s right. Perhaps he’s wrong, and it only prevents a million a year. But are we comfortable deciding that only the guns that are used to kill someone in self defense are to be counted? How about the homeowner who is seen through the windows walking through her house with a shotgun after hearing a noise and it frightens the criminals away?

I don’t deny that people can and do abuse the weapon. I don’t deny that people abuse pain medications. I don’t want to ban pain meds, and don’t support it. Because there are lots of people who really NEED that medication for severe pain. Is addiction a problem? Yes. Is overdosing a problem? Yes. Is pain a problem? You bet your ass it is.

I am willing to accept extrapolated numbers. We accept them in the number of women who were raped, even though that number is higher than actually reported rapes. I am willing to accept that some women do not come forward to file a report, for any number of reasons. I am willing to accept a lot of extrapolated numbers, including police misconduct. A survey showed that cops were lying in roughly one case out of five every day. The survey was conducted of lawyers and judges. People who deal with the courts every day in other words. Perhaps it is that often, perhaps not. We know it is happening, and we know that every single lie told by cops is not caught. But those who argue that police misconduct is not a real issue only want to admit the convictions as proof of wrongdoing. Convictions, not charges, not complaints.

That is like saying that the only murders that happened are ones where the baddie is convicted. Or like arguing that only the rapes that result in a conviction should be counted. We would never stand for that would we?

So how many times are guns used defensively? I don’t know. I don’t know how many times a day a criminal decides not to rob a man, or woman, because they might be armed. I don’t know how many times a woman isn’t raped because she might have a gun. I don’t know how many times a carjacking doesn’t happen because the owner of the car looks like he might be armed. I don’t know how many times someone pulls their pistol and then doesn’t report it because the baddie flees and they didn’t get a good look and don’t want to deal with the cops so they don’t report it. I don’t even know how many rapes happen every year, no one does, because all of them are not reported. I do believe that the total number is larger than the actual reports. I just don’t know how much larger.

None of which addresses my point. If guns are used defensively 2.4 million times a year where are the bad guys with bullet holes?

Actually you proved my point. Thank you.

 

[SavannahMann]

Has anyone here ever thought this ridiculous 2.4 million a year figure through?

Do you realize that means that over 275 times every hour of every day someone uses a gun to defend themselves.

Now lets be very generous here and say that 90% of the time just showing the gun is enough. I personally think that's nonsense, there is no way 9 out of 10 armed desperate people run from a gun but like I said, I'm being generous.

That's 27+ shooting victims an hour, every hour, all day long. 650 people showing up at emergency rooms with unexplained holes in them every day.

250,000 extra gunshot victims a year.

Where are they?

Not if you see where Kleck got the number. One of the biggest survey sample was criminals, convicts. Kleck went to prisons and interviewed the convicts and asked them how often the presence of a gun, perceived, suspected, or actually seen, caused them to change their plans.

For muggers, it was far more often, especially in states where concealed carry was more prevalent. For car hackers, again, it was more prevalent, in the same states.

In Georgia, roughly speaking, one in ten residents are licensed to carry concealed. That means that the criminal has a roughly ten percent chance of coming across someone who is legally allowed to be carrying a gun. One in ten victims is liable to be armed.

Kleck took the discrimination numbers from the criminals, and added it to the people who said they had reached for a gun, and someone had fled. And the times that people actually pulled it, and the people who fired.

We often hear that we should ban guns if it can save just one life. Or we should do some other thing even if it can only save one life. We certainly have done a lot more, for a few people every year haven’t we? Airbags. We had a massive airbag recall because a handful of people had died over several years because of defective airbags.

But what about the other way around? Can we ban guns if those guns save just one life? If as Kleck said that the suspected presence of a gun deterred a rapist from attacking some woman, can we dare ban the guns?

We all know that airbags can kill people. Especially smaller children, or older frail people. The sudden explosive inflation is rather violent. Yet, we do not ban airbags. We don’t even decide to leave it up to the customer, letting him or her decide if he wants one. Because the probability is that the airbag is more likely to save a life, than end it.

If you accept how Kleck got his numbers as reasonably valid, and if rapists decide not to attack a woman even once. Not even all the rapists, but lets say half of the rapists decide to not attack a woman who may have a gun once per year, then haven’t you prevented a rape each time that decision is made?

We tell women to fight back. To use pepper spray, to scream for help, to avoid situations where they are alone, and vulnerable. We’ve had the Rape Whistle, the air horn, and all the other silly shit. But lets be honest, you are going to be in those situations sooner or later this year ladies. You are going to have a situation where you are approaching a car at night, when the lighting is not good. Or when you are approaching your door without being able to scan the area, or are home alone when someone is creeping around outside.

Women go to self defense classes to learn how to fight. Women go to awareness classes to learn how to spot dangerous situations and areas. Men are asked to escort the women from time to time. At least they were when I was younger.

Kleck argued that after talking to those rapists in prison, a goodly number were prevented not by rape whistles, or air horns, or pepper spray. A goodly number were prevented when the rapist looked at the women, or the area, and decided that someone might have a gun, and the Rapist moved on. Perhaps he picked someone else perhaps not.

The same is true of robberies, assaults, and the rest according to Kleck.

But that is an interesting standard isn’t it? Let’s apply it to immunizations. Can you prove that your child is going to be exposed to those diseases? Can you prove that my child is going to be exposed to the diseases? No, of course you can’t. But we know that those diseases exist, and it is possible, so we immunize to prevent the disease. Every year people go out and get the Flu Vaccine. The Flu shows up anyway. The next year, everyone is out getting it again. It might not protect you, and it might only make the flu less severe in your case, or the vaccine might be a bad match. But we still line up and get our shots don’t we?

How many cases of Flu does the vaccine prevent? But it prevents some, so we get them.

So how many rapes, robberies, assaults, and thefts do guns prevent. I don’t know. We know they prevent some. The criminals told us that much through Kleck. Kleck used an extrapolation to come up with a number. Perhaps he’s right. Perhaps he’s wrong, and it only prevents a million a year. But are we comfortable deciding that only the guns that are used to kill someone in self defense are to be counted? How about the homeowner who is seen through the windows walking through her house with a shotgun after hearing a noise and it frightens the criminals away?

I don’t deny that people can and do abuse the weapon. I don’t deny that people abuse pain medications. I don’t want to ban pain meds, and don’t support it. Because there are lots of people who really NEED that medication for severe pain. Is addiction a problem? Yes. Is overdosing a problem? Yes. Is pain a problem? You bet your ass it is.

I am willing to accept extrapolated numbers. We accept them in the number of women who were raped, even though that number is higher than actually reported rapes. I am willing to accept that some women do not come forward to file a report, for any number of reasons. I am willing to accept a lot of extrapolated numbers, including police misconduct. A survey showed that cops were lying in roughly one case out of five every day. The survey was conducted of lawyers and judges. People who deal with the courts every day in other words. Perhaps it is that often, perhaps not. We know it is happening, and we know that every single lie told by cops is not caught. But those who argue that police misconduct is not a real issue only want to admit the convictions as proof of wrongdoing. Convictions, not charges, not complaints.

That is like saying that the only murders that happened are ones where the baddie is convicted. Or like arguing that only the rapes that result in a conviction should be counted. We would never stand for that would we?

So how many times are guns used defensively? I don’t know. I don’t know how many times a day a criminal decides not to rob a man, or woman, because they might be armed. I don’t know how many times a woman isn’t raped because she might have a gun. I don’t know how many times a carjacking doesn’t happen because the owner of the car looks like he might be armed. I don’t know how many times someone pulls their pistol and then doesn’t report it because the baddie flees and they didn’t get a good look and don’t want to deal with the cops so they don’t report it. I don’t even know how many rapes happen every year, no one does, because all of them are not reported. I do believe that the total number is larger than the actual reports. I just don’t know how much larger.

Another point:. Kleck has been thoroughly discredited as a researcher. Flawed methodology and lack of due dilligence are just a couple of the problems found in his papers.

Thank you again for proving my point.

 

[Crepitus]

Has anyone here ever thought this ridiculous 2.4 million a year figure through?

Do you realize that means that over 275 times every hour of every day someone uses a gun to defend themselves.

Now lets be very generous here and say that 90% of the time just showing the gun is enough. I personally think that's nonsense, there is no way 9 out of 10 armed desperate people run from a gun but like I said, I'm being generous.

That's 27+ shooting victims an hour, every hour, all day long. 650 people showing up at emergency rooms with unexplained holes in them every day.

250,000 extra gunshot victims a year.

Where are they?

Not if you see where Kleck got the number. One of the biggest survey sample was criminals, convicts. Kleck went to prisons and interviewed the convicts and asked them how often the presence of a gun, perceived, suspected, or actually seen, caused them to change their plans.

For muggers, it was far more often, especially in states where concealed carry was more prevalent. For car hackers, again, it was more prevalent, in the same states.

In Georgia, roughly speaking, one in ten residents are licensed to carry concealed. That means that the criminal has a roughly ten percent chance of coming across someone who is legally allowed to be carrying a gun. One in ten victims is liable to be armed.

Kleck took the discrimination numbers from the criminals, and added it to the people who said they had reached for a gun, and someone had fled. And the times that people actually pulled it, and the people who fired.

We often hear that we should ban guns if it can save just one life. Or we should do some other thing even if it can only save one life. We certainly have done a lot more, for a few people every year haven’t we? Airbags. We had a massive airbag recall because a handful of people had died over several years because of defective airbags.

But what about the other way around? Can we ban guns if those guns save just one life? If as Kleck said that the suspected presence of a gun deterred a rapist from attacking some woman, can we dare ban the guns?

We all know that airbags can kill people. Especially smaller children, or older frail people. The sudden explosive inflation is rather violent. Yet, we do not ban airbags. We don’t even decide to leave it up to the customer, letting him or her decide if he wants one. Because the probability is that the airbag is more likely to save a life, than end it.

If you accept how Kleck got his numbers as reasonably valid, and if rapists decide not to attack a woman even once. Not even all the rapists, but lets say half of the rapists decide to not attack a woman who may have a gun once per year, then haven’t you prevented a rape each time that decision is made?

We tell women to fight back. To use pepper spray, to scream for help, to avoid situations where they are alone, and vulnerable. We’ve had the Rape Whistle, the air horn, and all the other silly shit. But lets be honest, you are going to be in those situations sooner or later this year ladies. You are going to have a situation where you are approaching a car at night, when the lighting is not good. Or when you are approaching your door without being able to scan the area, or are home alone when someone is creeping around outside.

Women go to self defense classes to learn how to fight. Women go to awareness classes to learn how to spot dangerous situations and areas. Men are asked to escort the women from time to time. At least they were when I was younger.

Kleck argued that after talking to those rapists in prison, a goodly number were prevented not by rape whistles, or air horns, or pepper spray. A goodly number were prevented when the rapist looked at the women, or the area, and decided that someone might have a gun, and the Rapist moved on. Perhaps he picked someone else perhaps not.

The same is true of robberies, assaults, and the rest according to Kleck.

But that is an interesting standard isn’t it? Let’s apply it to immunizations. Can you prove that your child is going to be exposed to those diseases? Can you prove that my child is going to be exposed to the diseases? No, of course you can’t. But we know that those diseases exist, and it is possible, so we immunize to prevent the disease. Every year people go out and get the Flu Vaccine. The Flu shows up anyway. The next year, everyone is out getting it again. It might not protect you, and it might only make the flu less severe in your case, or the vaccine might be a bad match. But we still line up and get our shots don’t we?

How many cases of Flu does the vaccine prevent? But it prevents some, so we get them.

So how many rapes, robberies, assaults, and thefts do guns prevent. I don’t know. We know they prevent some. The criminals told us that much through Kleck. Kleck used an extrapolation to come up with a number. Perhaps he’s right. Perhaps he’s wrong, and it only prevents a million a year. But are we comfortable deciding that only the guns that are used to kill someone in self defense are to be counted? How about the homeowner who is seen through the windows walking through her house with a shotgun after hearing a noise and it frightens the criminals away?

I don’t deny that people can and do abuse the weapon. I don’t deny that people abuse pain medications. I don’t want to ban pain meds, and don’t support it. Because there are lots of people who really NEED that medication for severe pain. Is addiction a problem? Yes. Is overdosing a problem? Yes. Is pain a problem? You bet your ass it is.

I am willing to accept extrapolated numbers. We accept them in the number of women who were raped, even though that number is higher than actually reported rapes. I am willing to accept that some women do not come forward to file a report, for any number of reasons. I am willing to accept a lot of extrapolated numbers, including police misconduct. A survey showed that cops were lying in roughly one case out of five every day. The survey was conducted of lawyers and judges. People who deal with the courts every day in other words. Perhaps it is that often, perhaps not. We know it is happening, and we know that every single lie told by cops is not caught. But those who argue that police misconduct is not a real issue only want to admit the convictions as proof of wrongdoing. Convictions, not charges, not complaints.

That is like saying that the only murders that happened are ones where the baddie is convicted. Or like arguing that only the rapes that result in a conviction should be counted. We would never stand for that would we?

So how many times are guns used defensively? I don’t know. I don’t know how many times a day a criminal decides not to rob a man, or woman, because they might be armed. I don’t know how many times a woman isn’t raped because she might have a gun. I don’t know how many times a carjacking doesn’t happen because the owner of the car looks like he might be armed. I don’t know how many times someone pulls their pistol and then doesn’t report it because the baddie flees and they didn’t get a good look and don’t want to deal with the cops so they don’t report it. I don’t even know how many rapes happen every year, no one does, because all of them are not reported. I do believe that the total number is larger than the actual reports. I just don’t know how much larger.

None of which addresses my point. If guns are used defensively 2.4 million times a year where are the bad guys with bullet holes?

Actually you proved my point. Thank you.

In what way does anything I said in any way validate your supposed point?

You can't just say that to win an argument, there actually has to be something there.

 

[Crepitus]

Has anyone here ever thought this ridiculous 2.4 million a year figure through?

Do you realize that means that over 275 times every hour of every day someone uses a gun to defend themselves.

Now lets be very generous here and say that 90% of the time just showing the gun is enough. I personally think that's nonsense, there is no way 9 out of 10 armed desperate people run from a gun but like I said, I'm being generous.

That's 27+ shooting victims an hour, every hour, all day long. 650 people showing up at emergency rooms with unexplained holes in them every day.

250,000 extra gunshot victims a year.

Where are they?

Not if you see where Kleck got the number. One of the biggest survey sample was criminals, convicts. Kleck went to prisons and interviewed the convicts and asked them how often the presence of a gun, perceived, suspected, or actually seen, caused them to change their plans.

For muggers, it was far more often, especially in states where concealed carry was more prevalent. For car hackers, again, it was more prevalent, in the same states.

In Georgia, roughly speaking, one in ten residents are licensed to carry concealed. That means that the criminal has a roughly ten percent chance of coming across someone who is legally allowed to be carrying a gun. One in ten victims is liable to be armed.

Kleck took the discrimination numbers from the criminals, and added it to the people who said they had reached for a gun, and someone had fled. And the times that people actually pulled it, and the people who fired.

We often hear that we should ban guns if it can save just one life. Or we should do some other thing even if it can only save one life. We certainly have done a lot more, for a few people every year haven’t we? Airbags. We had a massive airbag recall because a handful of people had died over several years because of defective airbags.

But what about the other way around? Can we ban guns if those guns save just one life? If as Kleck said that the suspected presence of a gun deterred a rapist from attacking some woman, can we dare ban the guns?

We all know that airbags can kill people. Especially smaller children, or older frail people. The sudden explosive inflation is rather violent. Yet, we do not ban airbags. We don’t even decide to leave it up to the customer, letting him or her decide if he wants one. Because the probability is that the airbag is more likely to save a life, than end it.

If you accept how Kleck got his numbers as reasonably valid, and if rapists decide not to attack a woman even once. Not even all the rapists, but lets say half of the rapists decide to not attack a woman who may have a gun once per year, then haven’t you prevented a rape each time that decision is made?

We tell women to fight back. To use pepper spray, to scream for help, to avoid situations where they are alone, and vulnerable. We’ve had the Rape Whistle, the air horn, and all the other silly shit. But lets be honest, you are going to be in those situations sooner or later this year ladies. You are going to have a situation where you are approaching a car at night, when the lighting is not good. Or when you are approaching your door without being able to scan the area, or are home alone when someone is creeping around outside.

Women go to self defense classes to learn how to fight. Women go to awareness classes to learn how to spot dangerous situations and areas. Men are asked to escort the women from time to time. At least they were when I was younger.

Kleck argued that after talking to those rapists in prison, a goodly number were prevented not by rape whistles, or air horns, or pepper spray. A goodly number were prevented when the rapist looked at the women, or the area, and decided that someone might have a gun, and the Rapist moved on. Perhaps he picked someone else perhaps not.

The same is true of robberies, assaults, and the rest according to Kleck.

But that is an interesting standard isn’t it? Let’s apply it to immunizations. Can you prove that your child is going to be exposed to those diseases? Can you prove that my child is going to be exposed to the diseases? No, of course you can’t. But we know that those diseases exist, and it is possible, so we immunize to prevent the disease. Every year people go out and get the Flu Vaccine. The Flu shows up anyway. The next year, everyone is out getting it again. It might not protect you, and it might only make the flu less severe in your case, or the vaccine might be a bad match. But we still line up and get our shots don’t we?

How many cases of Flu does the vaccine prevent? But it prevents some, so we get them.

So how many rapes, robberies, assaults, and thefts do guns prevent. I don’t know. We know they prevent some. The criminals told us that much through Kleck. Kleck used an extrapolation to come up with a number. Perhaps he’s right. Perhaps he’s wrong, and it only prevents a million a year. But are we comfortable deciding that only the guns that are used to kill someone in self defense are to be counted? How about the homeowner who is seen through the windows walking through her house with a shotgun after hearing a noise and it frightens the criminals away?

I don’t deny that people can and do abuse the weapon. I don’t deny that people abuse pain medications. I don’t want to ban pain meds, and don’t support it. Because there are lots of people who really NEED that medication for severe pain. Is addiction a problem? Yes. Is overdosing a problem? Yes. Is pain a problem? You bet your ass it is.

I am willing to accept extrapolated numbers. We accept them in the number of women who were raped, even though that number is higher than actually reported rapes. I am willing to accept that some women do not come forward to file a report, for any number of reasons. I am willing to accept a lot of extrapolated numbers, including police misconduct. A survey showed that cops were lying in roughly one case out of five every day. The survey was conducted of lawyers and judges. People who deal with the courts every day in other words. Perhaps it is that often, perhaps not. We know it is happening, and we know that every single lie told by cops is not caught. But those who argue that police misconduct is not a real issue only want to admit the convictions as proof of wrongdoing. Convictions, not charges, not complaints.

That is like saying that the only murders that happened are ones where the baddie is convicted. Or like arguing that only the rapes that result in a conviction should be counted. We would never stand for that would we?

So how many times are guns used defensively? I don’t know. I don’t know how many times a day a criminal decides not to rob a man, or woman, because they might be armed. I don’t know how many times a woman isn’t raped because she might have a gun. I don’t know how many times a carjacking doesn’t happen because the owner of the car looks like he might be armed. I don’t know how many times someone pulls their pistol and then doesn’t report it because the baddie flees and they didn’t get a good look and don’t want to deal with the cops so they don’t report it. I don’t even know how many rapes happen every year, no one does, because all of them are not reported. I do believe that the total number is larger than the actual reports. I just don’t know how much larger.

Another point:. Kleck has been thoroughly discredited as a researcher. Flawed methodology and lack of due dilligence are just a couple of the problems found in his papers.

Thank you again for proving my point.

I'm forced to conclude you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Center for DISEASE Control

Investigating guns......
Not investigating transgender.....

One is a guaranteed right the other is a debilitating mental disorder.

Hmmmm

Interesting thought. Being who you want to be is definitely a right, but I never thought of gun ownership as a mental disorder before.

 

[2aguy]

Dems do not want to ban all guns: there is no evidence of that.

SCOTUS has no intention of overturning the 2dA.

The 4 left wing justices want to overturn Heller and the former left wing Justice said we need to repeal the 2nd amendment.....you can't lie any more....we saw you asshats at the CNN town hall and the D.C. Rallies calling for the banning and confiscation of guns and the end of the 2nd Amendment......you can't hide it...your minions can't keep the secret..

 

[2aguy]

Has anyone here ever thought this ridiculous 2.4 million a year figure through?

Do you realize that means that over 275 times every hour of every day someone uses a gun to defend themselves.

Now lets be very generous here and say that 90% of the time just showing the gun is enough. I personally think that's nonsense, there is no way 9 out of 10 armed desperate people run from a gun but like I said, I'm being generous.

That's 27+ shooting victims an hour, every hour, all day long. 650 people showing up at emergency rooms with unexplained holes in them every day.

250,000 extra gunshot victims a year.

Where are they?

All of this actual research says you are wrong.....after Dr. Kleck did his study, bill clinton ordered the Department of Justice to find anti gunners to do their own study to disprove Kleck, and now we found out he did the same thing at the CDC.....and their numbers? 1.5 million defensive gun uses from the Department of Justice study and 2.4 million by the CDC....all in an attempt to refute Kleck's number...and then, you have all the other research....

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)....

 

[2aguy]

They are not.

The number, if it is accurate (imo, it's not) is attributable to the cops pulling guns 275 times every hour.

Wrong...you lie....I showed you exactly where the study did not use police and military defensive gun uses......

The fact that anti gunners lie in every aspect of this debate should show to those gun owners who are generally uninformed on the politics of gun control, that when an anti gunner like jake says he doesn't want to ban all guns..... he is lying......lying about it at every level.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dems do not want to ban all guns: there is no evidence of that.

SCOTUS has no intention of overturning the 2dA.

The 4 left wing justices want to overturn Heller and the former left wing Justice said we need to repeal the 2nd amendment.....you can't lie any more....we saw you asshats at the CNN town hall and the D.C. Rallies calling for the banning and confiscation of guns and the end of the 2nd Amendment......you can't hide it...your minions can't keep the secret..

SCOTUS amending Heller is not gun ban. Why are you lying?

 

[JakeStarkey]

They are not.

The number, if it is accurate (imo, it's not) is attributable to the cops pulling guns 275 times every hour.

Wrong...you lie....I showed you exactly where the study did not use police and military defensive gun uses......

The fact that anti gunners lie in every aspect of this debate should show to those gun owners who are generally uninformed on the politics of gun control, that when an anti gunner like jake says he doesn't want to ban all guns..... he is lying......lying about it at every level.

That is not the point. The point is that the numbers cannot stand up on their own, as has been unequivocally proven above.

 

[Crepitus]

Has anyone here ever thought this ridiculous 2.4 million a year figure through?

Do you realize that means that over 275 times every hour of every day someone uses a gun to defend themselves.

Now lets be very generous here and say that 90% of the time just showing the gun is enough. I personally think that's nonsense, there is no way 9 out of 10 armed desperate people run from a gun but like I said, I'm being generous.

That's 27+ shooting victims an hour, every hour, all day long. 650 people showing up at emergency rooms with unexplained holes in them every day.

250,000 extra gunshot victims a year.

Where are they?

All of this actual research says you are wrong.....after Dr. Kleck did his study, bill clinton ordered the Department of Justice to find anti gunners to do their own study to disprove Kleck, and now we found out he did the same thing at the CDC.....and their numbers? 1.5 million defensive gun uses from the Department of Justice study and 2.4 million by the CDC....all in an attempt to refute Kleck's number...and then, you have all the other research....

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)....

Lol, so kleck, in his infinite wisdom, thinks people lied to the feds because they were afraid of them? Even though defending yourself is perfectly legal?

Lame excuse.

 

[2aguy]

Has anyone here ever thought this ridiculous 2.4 million a year figure through?

Do you realize that means that over 275 times every hour of every day someone uses a gun to defend themselves.

Now lets be very generous here and say that 90% of the time just showing the gun is enough. I personally think that's nonsense, there is no way 9 out of 10 armed desperate people run from a gun but like I said, I'm being generous.

That's 27+ shooting victims an hour, every hour, all day long. 650 people showing up at emergency rooms with unexplained holes in them every day.

250,000 extra gunshot victims a year.

Where are they?

Not if you see where Kleck got the number. One of the biggest survey sample was criminals, convicts. Kleck went to prisons and interviewed the convicts and asked them how often the presence of a gun, perceived, suspected, or actually seen, caused them to change their plans.

For muggers, it was far more often, especially in states where concealed carry was more prevalent. For car hackers, again, it was more prevalent, in the same states.

In Georgia, roughly speaking, one in ten residents are licensed to carry concealed. That means that the criminal has a roughly ten percent chance of coming across someone who is legally allowed to be carrying a gun. One in ten victims is liable to be armed.

Kleck took the discrimination numbers from the criminals, and added it to the people who said they had reached for a gun, and someone had fled. And the times that people actually pulled it, and the people who fired.

We often hear that we should ban guns if it can save just one life. Or we should do some other thing even if it can only save one life. We certainly have done a lot more, for a few people every year haven’t we? Airbags. We had a massive airbag recall because a handful of people had died over several years because of defective airbags.

But what about the other way around? Can we ban guns if those guns save just one life? If as Kleck said that the suspected presence of a gun deterred a rapist from attacking some woman, can we dare ban the guns?

We all know that airbags can kill people. Especially smaller children, or older frail people. The sudden explosive inflation is rather violent. Yet, we do not ban airbags. We don’t even decide to leave it up to the customer, letting him or her decide if he wants one. Because the probability is that the airbag is more likely to save a life, than end it.

If you accept how Kleck got his numbers as reasonably valid, and if rapists decide not to attack a woman even once. Not even all the rapists, but lets say half of the rapists decide to not attack a woman who may have a gun once per year, then haven’t you prevented a rape each time that decision is made?

We tell women to fight back. To use pepper spray, to scream for help, to avoid situations where they are alone, and vulnerable. We’ve had the Rape Whistle, the air horn, and all the other silly shit. But lets be honest, you are going to be in those situations sooner or later this year ladies. You are going to have a situation where you are approaching a car at night, when the lighting is not good. Or when you are approaching your door without being able to scan the area, or are home alone when someone is creeping around outside.

Women go to self defense classes to learn how to fight. Women go to awareness classes to learn how to spot dangerous situations and areas. Men are asked to escort the women from time to time. At least they were when I was younger.

Kleck argued that after talking to those rapists in prison, a goodly number were prevented not by rape whistles, or air horns, or pepper spray. A goodly number were prevented when the rapist looked at the women, or the area, and decided that someone might have a gun, and the Rapist moved on. Perhaps he picked someone else perhaps not.

The same is true of robberies, assaults, and the rest according to Kleck.

But that is an interesting standard isn’t it? Let’s apply it to immunizations. Can you prove that your child is going to be exposed to those diseases? Can you prove that my child is going to be exposed to the diseases? No, of course you can’t. But we know that those diseases exist, and it is possible, so we immunize to prevent the disease. Every year people go out and get the Flu Vaccine. The Flu shows up anyway. The next year, everyone is out getting it again. It might not protect you, and it might only make the flu less severe in your case, or the vaccine might be a bad match. But we still line up and get our shots don’t we?

How many cases of Flu does the vaccine prevent? But it prevents some, so we get them.

So how many rapes, robberies, assaults, and thefts do guns prevent. I don’t know. We know they prevent some. The criminals told us that much through Kleck. Kleck used an extrapolation to come up with a number. Perhaps he’s right. Perhaps he’s wrong, and it only prevents a million a year. But are we comfortable deciding that only the guns that are used to kill someone in self defense are to be counted? How about the homeowner who is seen through the windows walking through her house with a shotgun after hearing a noise and it frightens the criminals away?

I don’t deny that people can and do abuse the weapon. I don’t deny that people abuse pain medications. I don’t want to ban pain meds, and don’t support it. Because there are lots of people who really NEED that medication for severe pain. Is addiction a problem? Yes. Is overdosing a problem? Yes. Is pain a problem? You bet your ass it is.

I am willing to accept extrapolated numbers. We accept them in the number of women who were raped, even though that number is higher than actually reported rapes. I am willing to accept that some women do not come forward to file a report, for any number of reasons. I am willing to accept a lot of extrapolated numbers, including police misconduct. A survey showed that cops were lying in roughly one case out of five every day. The survey was conducted of lawyers and judges. People who deal with the courts every day in other words. Perhaps it is that often, perhaps not. We know it is happening, and we know that every single lie told by cops is not caught. But those who argue that police misconduct is not a real issue only want to admit the convictions as proof of wrongdoing. Convictions, not charges, not complaints.

That is like saying that the only murders that happened are ones where the baddie is convicted. Or like arguing that only the rapes that result in a conviction should be counted. We would never stand for that would we?

So how many times are guns used defensively? I don’t know. I don’t know how many times a day a criminal decides not to rob a man, or woman, because they might be armed. I don’t know how many times a woman isn’t raped because she might have a gun. I don’t know how many times a carjacking doesn’t happen because the owner of the car looks like he might be armed. I don’t know how many times someone pulls their pistol and then doesn’t report it because the baddie flees and they didn’t get a good look and don’t want to deal with the cops so they don’t report it. I don’t even know how many rapes happen every year, no one does, because all of them are not reported. I do believe that the total number is larger than the actual reports. I just don’t know how much larger.

Yeah....no...that isn't what Kleck did.......can you link to where he stated he did that? I have posted his defense of his study numerous times and that is not part of his defense of his numbers....

Here is one defense....does not mention criminals in prison...you may likely be confusing the Kleck research with someone elses who actually did interview criminals....but that isn't what Kleck or the CDC based their research on or the Department of Justice study that found 1.5 million defensive gun uses...

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

B. THE GUN SURVEYS

At least thirteen previous surveys have given a radically different picture of the frequency of DGUs. The surveys, summarized in Table 1, can be labelled the "gun surveys" because they were all, at least to some extent, concerned with the ownership and use of guns. Some were primarily devoted to this subject, while others were general purpose opinion surveys which happened to include some questions pertaining to guns. They are an extremely heterogeneous collection, some conducted by academic researchers for scholarly purposes, others by commercial polling firms. Moreover, their sponsors differed; some were sponsored by pro-gun control organizations (Cambridge Reports, Hart), others were sponsored by anti-control organizations (DMIa, DMIb), while still others were paid for by news media organizations, governments, or by research grants awarded to independent academics.

None of the surveys were meant as exclusive studies of DGU. Indeed, they each contained only one or two questions on the subject. Consequently, none of them are very thorough or satisfactory for estimating DGU frequency, even though they otherwise seem to have been conducted quite professionally. Some of the surveys were flawed by asking questions that used a lifetime recall period ("Have you ever .. ?"), making it impossible to estimate uses within any specified time span.[32] Some surveys limited coverage to registered voters, while others failed to exclude defensive uses against animals, or occupational uses by police officers, military personnel, or private security guards.[33] Some asked the key questions with reference only to the R, while others asked Rs to report on the experiences of all of the members of their households, relying on second-hand reports.[34] Methodological research on the NCVS indicates that substantially fewer crime incidents are reported when one household member reports for all household members than when each person is interviewed separately about their own experiences.[35] The same should also be true of those crime incidents that involve victims using guns.

The least useful of the surveys did not even ask the defensive use question of all Rs, instead it asked it only of gun owners, or, even more narrowly, of just handgun owners or just those who owned handguns for protection purposes.[36] This procedure was apparently based on the dubious assumption that people who used a gun defensively no longer owned the gun by the time of the survey, or that the gun belonged to someone else, or that the R owned the gun for a reason other than protection or kept it outside the home.

Most importantly, the surveys did not ask enough questions to establish exactly what was done with the guns in reported defensive use incidents. At best, some of the surveys only established whether the gun was fired. The lack of such detail raises the possibility that the guns were not actually "used" in any meaningful way. Instead, Rs might be remembering occasions on which they merely carried a gun for protection "just in case" or investigated a suspicious noise in their backyard, only to find nothing.

Nevertheless, among these imperfect surveys, two were relatively good for present purposes. Both the Hart survey in 1981 and the Mauser survey in 1990 were national surveys which asked carefully worded questions directed at all Rs in their samples. Both surveys excluded uses against animals and occupational uses. The two also nicely complemented each other in that the Hart survey asked only about uses of handguns, while the Mauser survey asked about uses of all gun types. The Hart survey results implied a minimum of about 640,000 annual DGUs involving handguns, while the Mauser results implied about 700,000 involving any type of gun.[37] It should be stressed, contrary to the claims of Reiss and Roth,[38] that neither of these estimates entailed the use of "dubious adjustment procedures." The percent of sample households reporting a DGU was simply multiplied by the total number of U.S. households, resulting in an estimate of DGU-involved households. This figure, compiled for a five year period, was then divided by five to yield a per-year figure.

In effect, each of the surveys summarized in Table 1 was measuring something different; simple estimates derived from each of them is not comparable in any straight-forward way. The figures in the bottom row reflect adjustments designed to produce estimates which are roughly comparable across surveys. The adjustments were based on a single standard, the Mauser survey. That is, all survey results were adjusted to approximate what they would have been had the surveys all been, like the Mauser survey, national surveys of non institutionalized U.S. adult residents in 1990, using the same question Mauser used. The question was addressed to all Rs; it concerned the experiences of all household members; it pertained to the use of any type of gun; and it excluded uses against animals. The full set of adjustments is explained in detail elsewhere.[39]

 

[2aguy]

They are not.

The number, if it is accurate (imo, it's not) is attributable to the cops pulling guns 275 times every hour.

Wrong...you lie....I showed you exactly where the study did not use police and military defensive gun uses......

The fact that anti gunners lie in every aspect of this debate should show to those gun owners who are generally uninformed on the politics of gun control, that when an anti gunner like jake says he doesn't want to ban all guns..... he is lying......lying about it at every level.

That is not the point. The point is that the numbers cannot stand up on their own, as has been unequivocally proven above.

No...not at all......the gun research is extensive.....you need to lie about it because it goes against the lies you keep telling about gun owners......

B. THE GUN SURVEYS

At least thirteen previous surveys have given a radically different picture of the frequency of DGUs. The surveys, summarized in Table 1, can be labelled the "gun surveys" because they were all, at least to some extent, concerned with the ownership and use of guns. Some were primarily devoted to this subject, while others were general purpose opinion surveys which happened to include some questions pertaining to guns. They are an extremely heterogeneous collection, some conducted by academic researchers for scholarly purposes, others by commercial polling firms. Moreover, their sponsors differed; some were sponsored by pro-gun control organizations (Cambridge Reports, Hart), others were sponsored by anti-control organizations (DMIa, DMIb), while still others were paid for by news media organizations, governments, or by research grants awarded to independent academics.

None of the surveys were meant as exclusive studies of DGU. Indeed, they each contained only one or two questions on the subject. Consequently, none of them are very thorough or satisfactory for estimating DGU frequency, even though they otherwise seem to have been conducted quite professionally. Some of the surveys were flawed by asking questions that used a lifetime recall period ("Have you ever .. ?"), making it impossible to estimate uses within any specified time span.[32] Some surveys limited coverage to registered voters, while others failed to exclude defensive uses against animals, or occupational uses by police officers, military personnel, or private security guards.[33] Some asked the key questions with reference only to the R, while others asked Rs to report on the experiences of all of the members of their households, relying on second-hand reports.[34] Methodological research on the NCVS indicates that substantially fewer crime incidents are reported when one household member reports for all household members than when each person is interviewed separately about their own experiences.[35] The same should also be true of those crime incidents that involve victims using guns.

The least useful of the surveys did not even ask the defensive use question of all Rs, instead it asked it only of gun owners, or, even more narrowly, of just handgun owners or just those who owned handguns for protection purposes.[36] This procedure was apparently based on the dubious assumption that people who used a gun defensively no longer owned the gun by the time of the survey, or that the gun belonged to someone else, or that the R owned the gun for a reason other than protection or kept it outside the home.

Most importantly, the surveys did not ask enough questions to establish exactly what was done with the guns in reported defensive use incidents. At best, some of the surveys only established whether the gun was fired. The lack of such detail raises the possibility that the guns were not actually "used" in any meaningful way. Instead, Rs might be remembering occasions on which they merely carried a gun for protection "just in case" or investigated a suspicious noise in their backyard, only to find nothing.

Nevertheless, among these imperfect surveys, two were relatively good for present purposes. Both the Hart survey in 1981 and the Mauser survey in 1990 were national surveys which asked carefully worded questions directed at all Rs in their samples. Both surveys excluded uses against animals and occupational uses. The two also nicely complemented each other in that the Hart survey asked only about uses of handguns, while the Mauser survey asked about uses of all gun types. The Hart survey results implied a minimum of about 640,000 annual DGUs involving handguns, while the Mauser results implied about 700,000 involving any type of gun.[37] It should be stressed, contrary to the claims of Reiss and Roth,[38] that neither of these estimates entailed the use of "dubious adjustment procedures." The percent of sample households reporting a DGU was simply multiplied by the total number of U.S. households, resulting in an estimate of DGU-involved households. This figure, compiled for a five year period, was then divided by five to yield a per-year figure.

In effect, each of the surveys summarized in Table 1 was measuring something different; simple estimates derived from each of them is not comparable in any straight-forward way. The figures in the bottom row reflect adjustments designed to produce estimates which are roughly comparable across surveys. The adjustments were based on a single standard, the Mauser survey. That is, all survey results were adjusted to approximate what they would have been had the surveys all been, like the Mauser survey, national surveys of non institutionalized U.S. adult residents in 1990, using the same question Mauser used. The question was addressed to all Rs; it concerned the experiences of all household members; it pertained to the use of any type of gun; and it excluded uses against animals. The full set of adjustments is explained in detail elsewhere.[39]

 

[2aguy]

Has anyone here ever thought this ridiculous 2.4 million a year figure through?

Do you realize that means that over 275 times every hour of every day someone uses a gun to defend themselves.

Now lets be very generous here and say that 90% of the time just showing the gun is enough. I personally think that's nonsense, there is no way 9 out of 10 armed desperate people run from a gun but like I said, I'm being generous.

That's 27+ shooting victims an hour, every hour, all day long. 650 people showing up at emergency rooms with unexplained holes in them every day.

250,000 extra gunshot victims a year.

Where are they?

All of this actual research says you are wrong.....after Dr. Kleck did his study, bill clinton ordered the Department of Justice to find anti gunners to do their own study to disprove Kleck, and now we found out he did the same thing at the CDC.....and their numbers? 1.5 million defensive gun uses from the Department of Justice study and 2.4 million by the CDC....all in an attempt to refute Kleck's number...and then, you have all the other research....

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)....

Lol, so kleck, in his infinite wisdom, thinks people lied to the feds because they were afraid of them? Even though defending yourself is perfectly legal?

Lame excuse.

Since you haven't read Kleck's study, but know everything about it.....

Kleck stated that his survey in 1992 was done at a time when it wasn't possible to legally carry guns in all states.....

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.

 

[2aguy]

Has anyone here ever thought this ridiculous 2.4 million a year figure through?

Do you realize that means that over 275 times every hour of every day someone uses a gun to defend themselves.

Now lets be very generous here and say that 90% of the time just showing the gun is enough. I personally think that's nonsense, there is no way 9 out of 10 armed desperate people run from a gun but like I said, I'm being generous.

That's 27+ shooting victims an hour, every hour, all day long. 650 people showing up at emergency rooms with unexplained holes in them every day.

250,000 extra gunshot victims a year.

Where are they?

Not if you see where Kleck got the number. One of the biggest survey sample was criminals, convicts. Kleck went to prisons and interviewed the convicts and asked them how often the presence of a gun, perceived, suspected, or actually seen, caused them to change their plans.

For muggers, it was far more often, especially in states where concealed carry was more prevalent. For car hackers, again, it was more prevalent, in the same states.

In Georgia, roughly speaking, one in ten residents are licensed to carry concealed. That means that the criminal has a roughly ten percent chance of coming across someone who is legally allowed to be carrying a gun. One in ten victims is liable to be armed.

Kleck took the discrimination numbers from the criminals, and added it to the people who said they had reached for a gun, and someone had fled. And the times that people actually pulled it, and the people who fired.

We often hear that we should ban guns if it can save just one life. Or we should do some other thing even if it can only save one life. We certainly have done a lot more, for a few people every year haven’t we? Airbags. We had a massive airbag recall because a handful of people had died over several years because of defective airbags.

But what about the other way around? Can we ban guns if those guns save just one life? If as Kleck said that the suspected presence of a gun deterred a rapist from attacking some woman, can we dare ban the guns?

We all know that airbags can kill people. Especially smaller children, or older frail people. The sudden explosive inflation is rather violent. Yet, we do not ban airbags. We don’t even decide to leave it up to the customer, letting him or her decide if he wants one. Because the probability is that the airbag is more likely to save a life, than end it.

If you accept how Kleck got his numbers as reasonably valid, and if rapists decide not to attack a woman even once. Not even all the rapists, but lets say half of the rapists decide to not attack a woman who may have a gun once per year, then haven’t you prevented a rape each time that decision is made?

We tell women to fight back. To use pepper spray, to scream for help, to avoid situations where they are alone, and vulnerable. We’ve had the Rape Whistle, the air horn, and all the other silly shit. But lets be honest, you are going to be in those situations sooner or later this year ladies. You are going to have a situation where you are approaching a car at night, when the lighting is not good. Or when you are approaching your door without being able to scan the area, or are home alone when someone is creeping around outside.

Women go to self defense classes to learn how to fight. Women go to awareness classes to learn how to spot dangerous situations and areas. Men are asked to escort the women from time to time. At least they were when I was younger.

Kleck argued that after talking to those rapists in prison, a goodly number were prevented not by rape whistles, or air horns, or pepper spray. A goodly number were prevented when the rapist looked at the women, or the area, and decided that someone might have a gun, and the Rapist moved on. Perhaps he picked someone else perhaps not.

The same is true of robberies, assaults, and the rest according to Kleck.

But that is an interesting standard isn’t it? Let’s apply it to immunizations. Can you prove that your child is going to be exposed to those diseases? Can you prove that my child is going to be exposed to the diseases? No, of course you can’t. But we know that those diseases exist, and it is possible, so we immunize to prevent the disease. Every year people go out and get the Flu Vaccine. The Flu shows up anyway. The next year, everyone is out getting it again. It might not protect you, and it might only make the flu less severe in your case, or the vaccine might be a bad match. But we still line up and get our shots don’t we?

How many cases of Flu does the vaccine prevent? But it prevents some, so we get them.

So how many rapes, robberies, assaults, and thefts do guns prevent. I don’t know. We know they prevent some. The criminals told us that much through Kleck. Kleck used an extrapolation to come up with a number. Perhaps he’s right. Perhaps he’s wrong, and it only prevents a million a year. But are we comfortable deciding that only the guns that are used to kill someone in self defense are to be counted? How about the homeowner who is seen through the windows walking through her house with a shotgun after hearing a noise and it frightens the criminals away?

I don’t deny that people can and do abuse the weapon. I don’t deny that people abuse pain medications. I don’t want to ban pain meds, and don’t support it. Because there are lots of people who really NEED that medication for severe pain. Is addiction a problem? Yes. Is overdosing a problem? Yes. Is pain a problem? You bet your ass it is.

I am willing to accept extrapolated numbers. We accept them in the number of women who were raped, even though that number is higher than actually reported rapes. I am willing to accept that some women do not come forward to file a report, for any number of reasons. I am willing to accept a lot of extrapolated numbers, including police misconduct. A survey showed that cops were lying in roughly one case out of five every day. The survey was conducted of lawyers and judges. People who deal with the courts every day in other words. Perhaps it is that often, perhaps not. We know it is happening, and we know that every single lie told by cops is not caught. But those who argue that police misconduct is not a real issue only want to admit the convictions as proof of wrongdoing. Convictions, not charges, not complaints.

That is like saying that the only murders that happened are ones where the baddie is convicted. Or like arguing that only the rapes that result in a conviction should be counted. We would never stand for that would we?

So how many times are guns used defensively? I don’t know. I don’t know how many times a day a criminal decides not to rob a man, or woman, because they might be armed. I don’t know how many times a woman isn’t raped because she might have a gun. I don’t know how many times a carjacking doesn’t happen because the owner of the car looks like he might be armed. I don’t know how many times someone pulls their pistol and then doesn’t report it because the baddie flees and they didn’t get a good look and don’t want to deal with the cops so they don’t report it. I don’t even know how many rapes happen every year, no one does, because all of them are not reported. I do believe that the total number is larger than the actual reports. I just don’t know how much larger.

Savanah Man....I took you post directly to Dr. Kleck.......I emailed him and he actually responded....here is what I sent....

Dr. Kleck,

I am discussing your latest study on the CDC and someone has stated that you got to your number of defensive gun uses by.....

"....Not if you see where Kleck got the number. One of the biggest survey sample was criminals, convicts. Kleck went to prisons and interviewed the convicts and asked them how often the presence of a gun, perceived, suspected, or actually seen, caused them to change their plans.

..........Kleck took the discrimination numbers from the criminals, and added it to the people who said they had reached for a gun, and someone had fled. And the times that people actually pulled it, and the people who fired. "

I was just wondering if this is accurate, as I am not completely familiar with all of your work.

And his reply?

From Dr. Gary Kleck.....

Gary Kleck
David J. Bordua Emeritus Professor of Criminology and
Criminal Justice
College of Criminology and Criminal Justice
Florida State University
314B Eppes Hall
112 S. Copeland Street
Tallahassee, FL 32306-1273

A complete fabrication. Please don't ask me anymore about stuff you've seen on crackpot websites.

So......you might want to discuss that with him....

This isn't the day where you can make a statement and then be safe because it can only be proven wrong by a lengthy process of snail mail correspondence or doing research in the Microfiche area of the public Library.........

The internet has it's issues, but it can be used to get results...

 

[Crepitus]

Has anyone here ever thought this ridiculous 2.4 million a year figure through?

Do you realize that means that over 275 times every hour of every day someone uses a gun to defend themselves.

Now lets be very generous here and say that 90% of the time just showing the gun is enough. I personally think that's nonsense, there is no way 9 out of 10 armed desperate people run from a gun but like I said, I'm being generous.

That's 27+ shooting victims an hour, every hour, all day long. 650 people showing up at emergency rooms with unexplained holes in them every day.

250,000 extra gunshot victims a year.

Where are they?

All of this actual research says you are wrong.....after Dr. Kleck did his study, bill clinton ordered the Department of Justice to find anti gunners to do their own study to disprove Kleck, and now we found out he did the same thing at the CDC.....and their numbers? 1.5 million defensive gun uses from the Department of Justice study and 2.4 million by the CDC....all in an attempt to refute Kleck's number...and then, you have all the other research....

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)....

Lol, so kleck, in his infinite wisdom, thinks people lied to the feds because they were afraid of them? Even though defending yourself is perfectly legal?

Lame excuse.

Since you haven't read Kleck's study, but know everything about it.....

Kleck stated that his survey in 1992 was done at a time when it wasn't possible to legally carry guns in all states.....

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.

I have read it. His and others as well. They are all flawed.

I'm not saying no one has ever chased off a bad gun by waving a gun, but 2.4 million times a year? Utter nonsense.

We can, BTW use klecks methodology to "prove" that 4 million people a year are abducted by aliens.

Here's an actual study, using reliable methodology, showing guns do the opposite of making people safer.

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows

 

[Crepitus]

Has anyone here ever thought this ridiculous 2.4 million a year figure through?

Do you realize that means that over 275 times every hour of every day someone uses a gun to defend themselves.

Now lets be very generous here and say that 90% of the time just showing the gun is enough. I personally think that's nonsense, there is no way 9 out of 10 armed desperate people run from a gun but like I said, I'm being generous.

That's 27+ shooting victims an hour, every hour, all day long. 650 people showing up at emergency rooms with unexplained holes in them every day.

250,000 extra gunshot victims a year.

Where are they?

Not if you see where Kleck got the number. One of the biggest survey sample was criminals, convicts. Kleck went to prisons and interviewed the convicts and asked them how often the presence of a gun, perceived, suspected, or actually seen, caused them to change their plans.

For muggers, it was far more often, especially in states where concealed carry was more prevalent. For car hackers, again, it was more prevalent, in the same states.

In Georgia, roughly speaking, one in ten residents are licensed to carry concealed. That means that the criminal has a roughly ten percent chance of coming across someone who is legally allowed to be carrying a gun. One in ten victims is liable to be armed.

Kleck took the discrimination numbers from the criminals, and added it to the people who said they had reached for a gun, and someone had fled. And the times that people actually pulled it, and the people who fired.

We often hear that we should ban guns if it can save just one life. Or we should do some other thing even if it can only save one life. We certainly have done a lot more, for a few people every year haven’t we? Airbags. We had a massive airbag recall because a handful of people had died over several years because of defective airbags.

But what about the other way around? Can we ban guns if those guns save just one life? If as Kleck said that the suspected presence of a gun deterred a rapist from attacking some woman, can we dare ban the guns?

We all know that airbags can kill people. Especially smaller children, or older frail people. The sudden explosive inflation is rather violent. Yet, we do not ban airbags. We don’t even decide to leave it up to the customer, letting him or her decide if he wants one. Because the probability is that the airbag is more likely to save a life, than end it.

If you accept how Kleck got his numbers as reasonably valid, and if rapists decide not to attack a woman even once. Not even all the rapists, but lets say half of the rapists decide to not attack a woman who may have a gun once per year, then haven’t you prevented a rape each time that decision is made?

We tell women to fight back. To use pepper spray, to scream for help, to avoid situations where they are alone, and vulnerable. We’ve had the Rape Whistle, the air horn, and all the other silly shit. But lets be honest, you are going to be in those situations sooner or later this year ladies. You are going to have a situation where you are approaching a car at night, when the lighting is not good. Or when you are approaching your door without being able to scan the area, or are home alone when someone is creeping around outside.

Women go to self defense classes to learn how to fight. Women go to awareness classes to learn how to spot dangerous situations and areas. Men are asked to escort the women from time to time. At least they were when I was younger.

Kleck argued that after talking to those rapists in prison, a goodly number were prevented not by rape whistles, or air horns, or pepper spray. A goodly number were prevented when the rapist looked at the women, or the area, and decided that someone might have a gun, and the Rapist moved on. Perhaps he picked someone else perhaps not.

The same is true of robberies, assaults, and the rest according to Kleck.

But that is an interesting standard isn’t it? Let’s apply it to immunizations. Can you prove that your child is going to be exposed to those diseases? Can you prove that my child is going to be exposed to the diseases? No, of course you can’t. But we know that those diseases exist, and it is possible, so we immunize to prevent the disease. Every year people go out and get the Flu Vaccine. The Flu shows up anyway. The next year, everyone is out getting it again. It might not protect you, and it might only make the flu less severe in your case, or the vaccine might be a bad match. But we still line up and get our shots don’t we?

How many cases of Flu does the vaccine prevent? But it prevents some, so we get them.

So how many rapes, robberies, assaults, and thefts do guns prevent. I don’t know. We know they prevent some. The criminals told us that much through Kleck. Kleck used an extrapolation to come up with a number. Perhaps he’s right. Perhaps he’s wrong, and it only prevents a million a year. But are we comfortable deciding that only the guns that are used to kill someone in self defense are to be counted? How about the homeowner who is seen through the windows walking through her house with a shotgun after hearing a noise and it frightens the criminals away?

I don’t deny that people can and do abuse the weapon. I don’t deny that people abuse pain medications. I don’t want to ban pain meds, and don’t support it. Because there are lots of people who really NEED that medication for severe pain. Is addiction a problem? Yes. Is overdosing a problem? Yes. Is pain a problem? You bet your ass it is.

I am willing to accept extrapolated numbers. We accept them in the number of women who were raped, even though that number is higher than actually reported rapes. I am willing to accept that some women do not come forward to file a report, for any number of reasons. I am willing to accept a lot of extrapolated numbers, including police misconduct. A survey showed that cops were lying in roughly one case out of five every day. The survey was conducted of lawyers and judges. People who deal with the courts every day in other words. Perhaps it is that often, perhaps not. We know it is happening, and we know that every single lie told by cops is not caught. But those who argue that police misconduct is not a real issue only want to admit the convictions as proof of wrongdoing. Convictions, not charges, not complaints.

That is like saying that the only murders that happened are ones where the baddie is convicted. Or like arguing that only the rapes that result in a conviction should be counted. We would never stand for that would we?

So how many times are guns used defensively? I don’t know. I don’t know how many times a day a criminal decides not to rob a man, or woman, because they might be armed. I don’t know how many times a woman isn’t raped because she might have a gun. I don’t know how many times a carjacking doesn’t happen because the owner of the car looks like he might be armed. I don’t know how many times someone pulls their pistol and then doesn’t report it because the baddie flees and they didn’t get a good look and don’t want to deal with the cops so they don’t report it. I don’t even know how many rapes happen every year, no one does, because all of them are not reported. I do believe that the total number is larger than the actual reports. I just don’t know how much larger.

Savanah Man....I took you post directly to Dr. Kleck.......I emailed him and he actually responded....here is what I sent....

Dr. Kleck,

I am discussing your latest study on the CDC and someone has stated that you got to your number of defensive gun uses by.....

"....Not if you see where Kleck got the number. One of the biggest survey sample was criminals, convicts. Kleck went to prisons and interviewed the convicts and asked them how often the presence of a gun, perceived, suspected, or actually seen, caused them to change their plans.

..........Kleck took the discrimination numbers from the criminals, and added it to the people who said they had reached for a gun, and someone had fled. And the times that people actually pulled it, and the people who fired. "

I was just wondering if this is accurate, as I am not completely familiar with all of your work.

And his reply?

From Dr. Gary Kleck.....

Gary Kleck
David J. Bordua Emeritus Professor of Criminology and
Criminal Justice
College of Criminology and Criminal Justice
Florida State University
314B Eppes Hall
112 S. Copeland Street
Tallahassee, FL 32306-1273

A complete fabrication. Please don't ask me anymore about stuff you've seen on crackpot websites.

So......you might want to discuss that with him....

This isn't the day where you can make a statement and then be safe because it can only be proven wrong by a lengthy process of snail mail correspondence or doing research in the Microfiche area of the public Library.........

The internet has it's issues, but it can be used to get results...

Lol, he didn't respond so much as tell you to sit down and shut up.

That's not a refutation by the way. He said "nuh uh".

 

[2aguy]

Has anyone here ever thought this ridiculous 2.4 million a year figure through?

Do you realize that means that over 275 times every hour of every day someone uses a gun to defend themselves.

Now lets be very generous here and say that 90% of the time just showing the gun is enough. I personally think that's nonsense, there is no way 9 out of 10 armed desperate people run from a gun but like I said, I'm being generous.

That's 27+ shooting victims an hour, every hour, all day long. 650 people showing up at emergency rooms with unexplained holes in them every day.

250,000 extra gunshot victims a year.

Where are they?

All of this actual research says you are wrong.....after Dr. Kleck did his study, bill clinton ordered the Department of Justice to find anti gunners to do their own study to disprove Kleck, and now we found out he did the same thing at the CDC.....and their numbers? 1.5 million defensive gun uses from the Department of Justice study and 2.4 million by the CDC....all in an attempt to refute Kleck's number...and then, you have all the other research....

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)....

Lol, so kleck, in his infinite wisdom, thinks people lied to the feds because they were afraid of them? Even though defending yourself is perfectly legal?

Lame excuse.

Since you haven't read Kleck's study, but know everything about it.....

Kleck stated that his survey in 1992 was done at a time when it wasn't possible to legally carry guns in all states.....

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.

I have read it. His and others as well. They are all flawed.

I'm not saying no one has ever chased off a bad gun by waving a gun, but 2.4 million times a year? Utter nonsense.

We can, BTW use klecks methodology to "prove" that 4 million people a year are abducted by aliens.

Here's an actual study, using reliable methodology, showing guns do the opposite of making people safer.

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows

Yeah....now that is crap......kellerman is in that link.....and it is his research that is cited......

You Know Less Than You Think About Guns

Is Having a Gun in the Home Inherently Deadly?

The idea that keeping a gun in the home puts owners and their families at elevated risk first rose to prominence in a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine article by Arthur Kellermann and his colleagues. "Although firearms are often kept in homes for personal protection," they concluded, "this study shows that the practice is counterproductive."

The study has many flaws. In addition to the predictable failure to establish causality, there's a more glaring irregularity: Slightly less than half of the murders Kellermann studied were actually committed with a gun (substantially less than the national average in 1993 of around 71 percent). And even in those cases he failed to establish that the gun owners were killed with their own guns. If even a small percentage of them weren't, given that more than half of the murders were notcommitted with guns, the causal relevance of the harmed being gun owners is far less clear. (The study found that even more dangerous risks than having a gun at home included living alone, using drugs, or being a renter.)

A 2013 literature review in the journal Aggression and Violent Behavior, written by the University of Utrecht psychologist Wolfgang Stroebe, starts with Kellermann but rejects the idea that firearm possession is "a primary cause of either suicide or homicide." However, he writes, "since guns are more effective means for [actually killing someone] than poison or other weapons, the rate of firearm possession can be expected to be positively related to overall rates of suicide and homicide." But even then we can't be sure of causality, since guns might be the choice of people with more serious lethal intent, against themselves or others, to begin with.

Stroebe notes that the two major post-Kellermann studies most often used to demonstrate an association between gun ownership and risk of homicide shared one of Kellermann's fatal flaws: They offer no information about whether the gun used to kill the gun owners was their own. And despite Kellermann's finding that living alone was very risky, one of the follow-ups, a 2004 study by Linda Dahlberg and colleagues, found that it was only those with roommates who faced a higher risk of a specifically gun-related homicide.


And here.....more on how flawed this work is...

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4

Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use,

32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight,

and 17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.

Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home.

One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used in the final analysis, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases.

This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped ascertain if the study was compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.

Likewise, Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has written me that knowledge about what guns were kept in the home is essential, but this data in his study was never released by Dr. Kellermann: "The most likely bit of data that he would want to withhold is information as to whether the gun used in the gun homicides was kept in the home of the victim."*

As Kates and associates point out, "The validity of the NEJM 1993 study¹s conclusions depend on the control group matching the homicide cases in every way (except, of course, for the occurrence of the homicide)."6

However, in this study, the controls collected did not match the cases in many ways (i.e., for example, in the amount of substance abuse, single parent versus two parent homes, etc.) contributing to further untoward effects, and decreasing the inference that can legitimately be drawn from the data of this study. Be that as it may, "The conclusion that gun ownership is a risk factor for homicide derives from the finding of a gun in 45.4 percent of the homicide case households, but in only 35.8 percent of the control household. Whether that finding is accurate, however, depends on the truthfulness of control group interviewees in admitting the presence of a gun or guns in the home."6

 

[2aguy]

Has anyone here ever thought this ridiculous 2.4 million a year figure through?

Do you realize that means that over 275 times every hour of every day someone uses a gun to defend themselves.

Now lets be very generous here and say that 90% of the time just showing the gun is enough. I personally think that's nonsense, there is no way 9 out of 10 armed desperate people run from a gun but like I said, I'm being generous.

That's 27+ shooting victims an hour, every hour, all day long. 650 people showing up at emergency rooms with unexplained holes in them every day.

250,000 extra gunshot victims a year.

Where are they?

Not if you see where Kleck got the number. One of the biggest survey sample was criminals, convicts. Kleck went to prisons and interviewed the convicts and asked them how often the presence of a gun, perceived, suspected, or actually seen, caused them to change their plans.

For muggers, it was far more often, especially in states where concealed carry was more prevalent. For car hackers, again, it was more prevalent, in the same states.

In Georgia, roughly speaking, one in ten residents are licensed to carry concealed. That means that the criminal has a roughly ten percent chance of coming across someone who is legally allowed to be carrying a gun. One in ten victims is liable to be armed.

Kleck took the discrimination numbers from the criminals, and added it to the people who said they had reached for a gun, and someone had fled. And the times that people actually pulled it, and the people who fired.

We often hear that we should ban guns if it can save just one life. Or we should do some other thing even if it can only save one life. We certainly have done a lot more, for a few people every year haven’t we? Airbags. We had a massive airbag recall because a handful of people had died over several years because of defective airbags.

But what about the other way around? Can we ban guns if those guns save just one life? If as Kleck said that the suspected presence of a gun deterred a rapist from attacking some woman, can we dare ban the guns?

We all know that airbags can kill people. Especially smaller children, or older frail people. The sudden explosive inflation is rather violent. Yet, we do not ban airbags. We don’t even decide to leave it up to the customer, letting him or her decide if he wants one. Because the probability is that the airbag is more likely to save a life, than end it.

If you accept how Kleck got his numbers as reasonably valid, and if rapists decide not to attack a woman even once. Not even all the rapists, but lets say half of the rapists decide to not attack a woman who may have a gun once per year, then haven’t you prevented a rape each time that decision is made?

We tell women to fight back. To use pepper spray, to scream for help, to avoid situations where they are alone, and vulnerable. We’ve had the Rape Whistle, the air horn, and all the other silly shit. But lets be honest, you are going to be in those situations sooner or later this year ladies. You are going to have a situation where you are approaching a car at night, when the lighting is not good. Or when you are approaching your door without being able to scan the area, or are home alone when someone is creeping around outside.

Women go to self defense classes to learn how to fight. Women go to awareness classes to learn how to spot dangerous situations and areas. Men are asked to escort the women from time to time. At least they were when I was younger.

Kleck argued that after talking to those rapists in prison, a goodly number were prevented not by rape whistles, or air horns, or pepper spray. A goodly number were prevented when the rapist looked at the women, or the area, and decided that someone might have a gun, and the Rapist moved on. Perhaps he picked someone else perhaps not.

The same is true of robberies, assaults, and the rest according to Kleck.

But that is an interesting standard isn’t it? Let’s apply it to immunizations. Can you prove that your child is going to be exposed to those diseases? Can you prove that my child is going to be exposed to the diseases? No, of course you can’t. But we know that those diseases exist, and it is possible, so we immunize to prevent the disease. Every year people go out and get the Flu Vaccine. The Flu shows up anyway. The next year, everyone is out getting it again. It might not protect you, and it might only make the flu less severe in your case, or the vaccine might be a bad match. But we still line up and get our shots don’t we?

How many cases of Flu does the vaccine prevent? But it prevents some, so we get them.

So how many rapes, robberies, assaults, and thefts do guns prevent. I don’t know. We know they prevent some. The criminals told us that much through Kleck. Kleck used an extrapolation to come up with a number. Perhaps he’s right. Perhaps he’s wrong, and it only prevents a million a year. But are we comfortable deciding that only the guns that are used to kill someone in self defense are to be counted? How about the homeowner who is seen through the windows walking through her house with a shotgun after hearing a noise and it frightens the criminals away?

I don’t deny that people can and do abuse the weapon. I don’t deny that people abuse pain medications. I don’t want to ban pain meds, and don’t support it. Because there are lots of people who really NEED that medication for severe pain. Is addiction a problem? Yes. Is overdosing a problem? Yes. Is pain a problem? You bet your ass it is.

I am willing to accept extrapolated numbers. We accept them in the number of women who were raped, even though that number is higher than actually reported rapes. I am willing to accept that some women do not come forward to file a report, for any number of reasons. I am willing to accept a lot of extrapolated numbers, including police misconduct. A survey showed that cops were lying in roughly one case out of five every day. The survey was conducted of lawyers and judges. People who deal with the courts every day in other words. Perhaps it is that often, perhaps not. We know it is happening, and we know that every single lie told by cops is not caught. But those who argue that police misconduct is not a real issue only want to admit the convictions as proof of wrongdoing. Convictions, not charges, not complaints.

That is like saying that the only murders that happened are ones where the baddie is convicted. Or like arguing that only the rapes that result in a conviction should be counted. We would never stand for that would we?

So how many times are guns used defensively? I don’t know. I don’t know how many times a day a criminal decides not to rob a man, or woman, because they might be armed. I don’t know how many times a woman isn’t raped because she might have a gun. I don’t know how many times a carjacking doesn’t happen because the owner of the car looks like he might be armed. I don’t know how many times someone pulls their pistol and then doesn’t report it because the baddie flees and they didn’t get a good look and don’t want to deal with the cops so they don’t report it. I don’t even know how many rapes happen every year, no one does, because all of them are not reported. I do believe that the total number is larger than the actual reports. I just don’t know how much larger.

Savanah Man....I took you post directly to Dr. Kleck.......I emailed him and he actually responded....here is what I sent....

Dr. Kleck,

I am discussing your latest study on the CDC and someone has stated that you got to your number of defensive gun uses by.....

"....Not if you see where Kleck got the number. One of the biggest survey sample was criminals, convicts. Kleck went to prisons and interviewed the convicts and asked them how often the presence of a gun, perceived, suspected, or actually seen, caused them to change their plans.

..........Kleck took the discrimination numbers from the criminals, and added it to the people who said they had reached for a gun, and someone had fled. And the times that people actually pulled it, and the people who fired. "

I was just wondering if this is accurate, as I am not completely familiar with all of your work.

And his reply?

From Dr. Gary Kleck.....

Gary Kleck
David J. Bordua Emeritus Professor of Criminology and
Criminal Justice
College of Criminology and Criminal Justice
Florida State University
314B Eppes Hall
112 S. Copeland Street
Tallahassee, FL 32306-1273

A complete fabrication. Please don't ask me anymore about stuff you've seen on crackpot websites.

So......you might want to discuss that with him....

This isn't the day where you can make a statement and then be safe because it can only be proven wrong by a lengthy process of snail mail correspondence or doing research in the Microfiche area of the public Library.........

The internet has it's issues, but it can be used to get results...

Lol, he didn't respond so much as tell you to sit down and shut up.

That's not a refutation by the way. He said "nuh uh".

I pointed out to Savanah Man that he was confusing two different studies, and Kleck verified it.......but thanks for being an anti gun useful idiot...

 

[Crepitus]

Has anyone here ever thought this ridiculous 2.4 million a year figure through?

Do you realize that means that over 275 times every hour of every day someone uses a gun to defend themselves.

Now lets be very generous here and say that 90% of the time just showing the gun is enough. I personally think that's nonsense, there is no way 9 out of 10 armed desperate people run from a gun but like I said, I'm being generous.

That's 27+ shooting victims an hour, every hour, all day long. 650 people showing up at emergency rooms with unexplained holes in them every day.

250,000 extra gunshot victims a year.

Where are they?

All of this actual research says you are wrong.....after Dr. Kleck did his study, bill clinton ordered the Department of Justice to find anti gunners to do their own study to disprove Kleck, and now we found out he did the same thing at the CDC.....and their numbers? 1.5 million defensive gun uses from the Department of Justice study and 2.4 million by the CDC....all in an attempt to refute Kleck's number...and then, you have all the other research....

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)....

Lol, so kleck, in his infinite wisdom, thinks people lied to the feds because they were afraid of them? Even though defending yourself is perfectly legal?

Lame excuse.

Since you haven't read Kleck's study, but know everything about it.....

Kleck stated that his survey in 1992 was done at a time when it wasn't possible to legally carry guns in all states.....

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.

I have read it. His and others as well. They are all flawed.

I'm not saying no one has ever chased off a bad gun by waving a gun, but 2.4 million times a year? Utter nonsense.

We can, BTW use klecks methodology to "prove" that 4 million people a year are abducted by aliens.

Here's an actual study, using reliable methodology, showing guns do the opposite of making people safer.

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows

Yeah....now that is crap......kellerman is in that link.....and it is his research that is cited......

You Know Less Than You Think About Guns

Is Having a Gun in the Home Inherently Deadly?

The idea that keeping a gun in the home puts owners and their families at elevated risk first rose to prominence in a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine article by Arthur Kellermann and his colleagues. "Although firearms are often kept in homes for personal protection," they concluded, "this study shows that the practice is counterproductive."

The study has many flaws. In addition to the predictable failure to establish causality, there's a more glaring irregularity: Slightly less than half of the murders Kellermann studied were actually committed with a gun (substantially less than the national average in 1993 of around 71 percent). And even in those cases he failed to establish that the gun owners were killed with their own guns. If even a small percentage of them weren't, given that more than half of the murders were notcommitted with guns, the causal relevance of the harmed being gun owners is far less clear. (The study found that even more dangerous risks than having a gun at home included living alone, using drugs, or being a renter.)

A 2013 literature review in the journal Aggression and Violent Behavior, written by the University of Utrecht psychologist Wolfgang Stroebe, starts with Kellermann but rejects the idea that firearm possession is "a primary cause of either suicide or homicide." However, he writes, "since guns are more effective means for [actually killing someone] than poison or other weapons, the rate of firearm possession can be expected to be positively related to overall rates of suicide and homicide." But even then we can't be sure of causality, since guns might be the choice of people with more serious lethal intent, against themselves or others, to begin with.

Stroebe notes that the two major post-Kellermann studies most often used to demonstrate an association between gun ownership and risk of homicide shared one of Kellermann's fatal flaws: They offer no information about whether the gun used to kill the gun owners was their own. And despite Kellermann's finding that living alone was very risky, one of the follow-ups, a 2004 study by Linda Dahlberg and colleagues, found that it was only those with roommates who faced a higher risk of a specifically gun-related homicide.


And here.....more on how flawed this work is...

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4

Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use,

32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight,

and 17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.

Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home.

One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used in the final analysis, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases.

This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped ascertain if the study was compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.

Likewise, Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has written me that knowledge about what guns were kept in the home is essential, but this data in his study was never released by Dr. Kellermann: "The most likely bit of data that he would want to withhold is information as to whether the gun used in the gun homicides was kept in the home of the victim."*

As Kates and associates point out, "The validity of the NEJM 1993 study¹s conclusions depend on the control group matching the homicide cases in every way (except, of course, for the occurrence of the homicide)."6

However, in this study, the controls collected did not match the cases in many ways (i.e., for example, in the amount of substance abuse, single parent versus two parent homes, etc.) contributing to further untoward effects, and decreasing the inference that can legitimately be drawn from the data of this study. Be that as it may, "The conclusion that gun ownership is a risk factor for homicide derives from the finding of a gun in 45.4 percent of the homicide case households, but in only 35.8 percent of the control household. Whether that finding is accurate, however, depends on the truthfulness of control group interviewees in admitting the presence of a gun or guns in the home."6

I realise you dislike the whole premise, but numbers don't lie.