Gun Control (from Thats' Gonna Leave a Mark)

Remove all ads!

i'll let the experts answer the ncvs part & i'm trying to find the right link on the doj site(it's a big site!) used to have a bunch of favoerite urls in my computer but that was before the last reformat. and now your answer from dr kleck himself
"Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."

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

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

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

you want just one website with a buch of listed stories of defensive uses :http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/search/label/DefensiveGunUse
there are many others available online just look. oh yeah you might want to read john lott's book while you are at it

 

How about an official link, Martaug?

Regarding the Kleck stuff, he was discredited years ago, so I really don't care about anything he has to say. If Kleck's methods are valid and his numbers are right, then 20 million Americans have seen aircraft from another planet and one million Americans have had contact with aliens.

 

he was discredited according to you no one else

 

Whatever you say, Martaug.

Just remember, if there are 2.5 million yearly occurrences of self defense with firearms and the average American life expectancy is 77.7 years, using Kleck's numbers, nearly two thirds of us will defend ourselves with a firearm -as a civillian - at some point during our lives...

 

well i have, more than once, but i was also a deputy so i was in a higher risk category. i have also worked in high risk jobs/areas whereas someone that lives in a particularly safe place may never have to be bothered to defend themselves. There are many complex factors that determine how often & the level of violence that someone will face.

 

Just remember, if there are 2.5 million yearly occurrences of self defense with firearms and the average American life expectancy is 77.7 years, using Kleck's numbers, nearly two thirds of us will defend ourselves with a firearm - as a civillian - at some point during our lives.

 

thats assuming that everybody only has 1 occurrence in their lifetime, since most people that are in an at risk area are likely to remain in that high risk area it is likely that they will have more than i occurence thereby lowering the number of others that have them. just like there are some officers that have never fired there weapons in the line of duty while others have done so dozens of times. it's just like real estate location, location ,location

 

Actually in Canada, Long guns, including hunting rifles and the normal .22 rifles that farmers and hunters need for their job are being targetted by gun control legislation. As for Tasers, I'm not going to hold my breath. These lobbyists will likely hat them too.

I'm too chicken to suggest that to the face of a gun toting person...

But wouldn't that hurt when a guy goes to take a leak?

Those are the most dangerous ones. Desparate and dumb.

 

I'll start with a quote from Morgoth:

Just to give my Oh yes you can. Don't know defending yourself against the justice system, not that I even think it's necessary, but you certainly can defend yourself from some idiot with a problem. Let alone three. So much so it couldn't be even considered self-defence anymore. Boy did they pick a fight with a wrong guy...just for the record, as far as I know they weren't hospitalized or seriously hurt, but I gather that they'll think twice the next time they might think it's a good idea to pick up a fight with some random harmless looking guy.

 

true iku, you or i may have no fear or problem taking on multiple assailants but what about the 5' tall 98 lb mother of 2 who is just trying to get home when stopped by the same 3 guys? what is her best chance? now don't take this to mean i think that all women are the weaker sex(yes, physically they are) as i know several that could take 95 out of a 100 guys in a fight. however not all women are like that just like all men aren't, i've got buddies that look like they could tear a house down & are useless in a fight. they just don't have the right mental frame of mind to be able to inflict injury on another person.

 

Picking on the same quote:

Do you seriously believe one of the advantages to having a gun is the ability to use violence to resist arrest? Even if the raid is not lawful, your life is not going to be in danger (unless, of course, you pull out a gun and start shooting) and I'd say you have a better chance taking the matter to court afterwards instead of trying to start a fire fight.

And yet would have the right frame of mind to shoot a gun at another person?

I struggle to see how having a gun is honestly likely to help her.

 

If she is trained in using that gun (and that's a big if) it's a much better chance than just submitting to rape, sodomy and murder -- it's not a perfect chance but it's something. But there's some who don't care about her if those horrible things happen to her as long as people with no criminal records are being punished for the crimes of others. I fail to see the logic in that sort of mindset, though.

 

you would be suprised how the gleam of steel or the silhouette of a gun takes the fight right out of most people.

my point about the right frame of mind is that some people, it doesn't matter what theyare not going to be able to defend themselves. it is called a victim mentality & can be a very difficult if not impossible thing to change.
my, i'm basically a selfish person & value my life more than just about anybody else's, so if my life is threatened i will due whatever is required to win, no equivocations at all. a lot of people can't do that, there are a few here on the boards that i think could very easily.

 

I am unaware if there are any statistics related to this, but I am confident when saying there is a reasonable chance that the woman won't know what she is doing with one. Even if we say that she manages to become aware of the danger and get the weapon out before being physically assaulted, the assailant is going to be right next to her. A firearm is of far less use when you are very close, for obvious reasons.

In other words, having a gun will not help them defend themselves.

I missed your meaning there. Simply out of curiosity, do you mean a lot of people here would or would not be able to defend themselves?

 

Guns are unnecessary for Joe Public. No vigilante Yank will ever persuade me otherwise. You don't need one. Nobody does, unless you're part of a SWAT team or otherwise in the army. Hunters should stop hunting and buy their meat from the supermarket like everyone else and leave the poor animals alone. Completely unnecessary things. Elect a government who will provide better policing if you're worried about crime. I feel perfectly safe. I have a stern look and a fierce right hook should anyone try owt, anyway.

 

Ok decados, point by point.
1) If the person has went to the trouble to get a license, go to the gun store, pick out a gun & purchase said gun, i'm almost 100% sure they will take at least the basic handgun course that almost every range offers. Some even offer them free to women.
There is a reason that firearm(specifically handgun) training is called CQB. It stands for Close-Quarter Battle, a pistol is better the closer an assailant is to you. That is why derringers(or belly guns) were so popular back in the day. It is a lot harder to miss from 6" than it is from 20'
2) No, the people with victim mentatlity will never be the ones carrying or even buying a weapon. These are the victims you see that have been killed by a lone knifeman in a room with a dozen victims. If they had rushed him, some would have been hurt(or killed) but some would have survived.
3) I think that there are a few people on the boards that have shown enough coldness to be able to do what has to be done when the die drops. I think a few would be suprised that i think they could kill if they had to however a few others, i'm sure know they could(if they haven't already). Hope that clears things up for you


p.s. yeah, yeah, thats fine for you barmy. not a country i wish to live in. i'm glad you are happy in england but it's not my cup of tea

 

This isn't necessarily true. Lots of people who get guns don't learn to shoot. You may (or may not) be surprised to know that a great many people really do think it's just a simple matter of point-and-click and no real training is necessary.

I think what Decados was driving at was that you often don't realize you are in danger until the assailant is already on top of you. At this point, the gun in your purse doesn't really help all that much. If the guy is 5 feet away you've got a chance, but it's a different story if he's already holding a knife to your throat or is pointing his gun at you.

 

Drew, you do realise that you CAN shoot a gun through a purse(god, i hope no women read this) so thats not really that much of a problem. I assume from your dislike of firearms that you haven't went to a gunstore recently. They are actually very good at persuading people to go to the range to get the basic training they need to handle their guns safely. In fact, a large number of the gunstores around here are also the range so they work special deals where you get a free months range time & the basic handguns class with a handgun purchase. This is just a sound business tactic as the more familar people are with their firearm the more they will come to enjoy shooting it.
Guns are a lot like tattoos, people like to say "oh i'm just gonna get one" & then 6 months later, bam! they have 5. They are just fun to shoot.

 

In theory, yes, that is possible. In any real situation however, the attacker will notice you fiddling with the side of your purse trying to get a hold on something. A weapon is going to be much harder to manipulate through a purse, you may not know where it is or which way around it is lying and trying to do so is in no way inconspicuous.