Amuses me that you're blathering on to me, when its the other fellow who made the mistake (and continues to make that mistake).
Only when you want to blind yourself to reality. Even the most conservative estimates demonstrate more defensive gun uses. But the antigunners apparently don't accept it as a DGU unless the bad guy dies. That's called dishonesty.
No that is not what is claimed You are building straw man arguments Again going back to research it has been determined that many so called defensive gun uses were in fact offensive gun use https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
These are some of the most die-hard anti-gun researchers in academia, and as such aren't sufficient as sources. Hemenway, David. Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of extreme overestimates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1997; 87:1430-1445. Hemenway, David. The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events. Chance (American Statistical Association). 1997; 10:6-10. Cook, Philip J; Ludwig, Jens; Hemenway, David. The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1997; 16:463-469. Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys. Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267.
Mere Political posturing as the many chronicles of defensive gun uses corroborated account with Police reports say otherwise. To discount actual Police reports of defensive gun use is truly disingenuous, mendacious even.
Regardless of this study or any other, this is no topic for the CDC. Their only focus should be biological threats, be they virus, bacteria, fungus or something along those lines, as that is truly the greatest threat to the nation at any given time. Wasting time and resources on inanimate objects is pointless and draws from a much more important mission...
You REALLY hate it when reality does not correspond to your preconceptions, don't you? Tell us again how your gun laws prevent mass shootings.
Where can I find the methodology of that study? I went to the link, but didn't see anything apparent. A random dial survey of how many people? How did those numbers compare to the CDC's data collection? Those sorts of things matter when looking at data and determining which one is more likely to be reliable.
Again, for the 5th or 6th time here is a link to the 2005 study conducted by It has digestible detail on the studies, methodologies and questions of Kleck and a comparison with those of Hemingway, among others. See chapter 7, but note it is worth reading the entire report. Ultimately, the committee gave more credence to Kleck’s methodology over that of Hemminway. https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/7#105 It is one thing to have not seen a report on this study, but I have shared it in several posts, but doubt any of the Gun Control clack has ever read it...more deliberately avoided doing so. BTW, it is also worth noting who was listed as working with the committee.
Is that supposed to be an academic critique??? " I don fink so" If you have an accurate analysis of the research findings that are at variance with those published findings or can in some way dispute the conclusion of the paper then post it. Surely if this researcher is so "bad" there will be academic papers published that dispute the conclusions
Oh! I have read it alright and because I have read it I know your statement to be false WHERE in that paper does it give more credence to Kleck's methodology over Hemmenway?
What I posted in another thread on the same topic: There are many problems with studies like this. 1) A person may claim to have used a gun in self defense, but there is no confirmation that that is indeed the case. Was there a police investigation which came to the conclusion that it was a legally justifiable case of self defense? We don't know. 2) We don't know that such claimed self defensive gun use is actually making people safer. In fact, Kellermann found that people who lived in homes where guns were kept were more likely to be murdered. So whatever defensive gun use is happening isn't resulting in fewer lives being lost. 3) Even more people will claim to have been victims of gun crime in surveys. "After controlling for other aspects of the surveys, these surveys indicate that criminal gun use is far more common that self-defense gun use. For example, in May 2000, a Washington Post national random-digit dial survey asked 'Not counting military service, have you ever been threatened with a gun or shot at?' Twenty-three percent (23%) said yes. In that same month (May 2000), a Gallup national random-digit dial survey asked 'Not including military combat, have you ever used a gun to defend yourself either by firing it or threatening to fire it?' Seven percent (7%) of respondents said yes." https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2013/01/Bullet-ins_Spring_2009.pdf So do we believe that 20 million Americans have used a gun to defend themselves, but 60 million Americans have been victims of criminal gun misuse?
Good analysis and critique I also like this critique of https://www.vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradictions-of-kleck Kleck just doe not make logical sense
Yes, his numbers are not consistent with other measures of crime: "These sorts of biases, which are inherent in reporting self-defense incidents, can lead to nonsensical results. In several crime categories, for example, gun owners would have to protect themselves more than 100 percent of the time for Kleck and Getz’s estimates to make sense. For example, guns were allegedly used in self-defense in 845,000 burglaries, according to Kleck and Getz. However, from reliable victimization surveys, we know that there were fewer than 1.3 million burglaries where someone was in the home at the time of the crime, and only 33 percent of these had occupants who weren’t sleeping. From surveys on firearm ownership, we also know that 42 percent of U.S. households owned firearms at the time of the survey. Even if burglars only rob houses of gun owners, and those gun owners use their weapons in self-defense every single time they are awake, the 845,000 statistic cited in Kleck and Gertz’s paper is simply mathematically impossible." https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262
Sorry sitting here with my mouth on the floor 80 Mass shootings so far this year!! Though to be fair they seem to have a low bar for what qualifies as a "mass shooting" and are not using the FBI definition of more than four dead but simply more than four injured. But even if we adjust for odds and say that only one in ten of those listed incidents meets the FBI criteria then that comes down to 8 so far this year - we would not have that many in 20 years
You could argue gun statistics forever and a day. What doesn't change are mass shootings and innocent people dying. Everytime you stock up on more guns, the deaths continue.
They continue despite all the "millions of defensive gun uses" that gun apologists love to tell us about.
If there are so many DGU's then why are not more mass shootings prevented? Not all occur in "gun free zones" in fact only a small proportion do
Heinlien said it best "We pilot always into an unknown future facts are our only clue - get the facts!!" Slowly, surely thanks to the determination of a few academics we have collected data to disprove the myths that the NRA have been using to justify thier barely legal arms trade
Your allegation must be backed up with conclusive proof that those people are using those guns to go out and shoot people, the people using guns to shoot others are not part of ordinary citizens that own guns. Countries and Nations that deny it's Citizens guns are not interested in defensive gun use as most gun control advocates, they only wish to eliminate guns. If you believe guns are the problem and banning or severely restrictions on gun ownership the answer, then these debates are pointless, because gun control advocates will only point to studies that back their preconceived notions.
