Reply With Quote
are the right-wing, gun fellators LYING, again?
rest is at http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...262_Page2.htmlThe spurious conclusions in these surveys don’t just distort the pro-gun community’s perception of defensive gun use. For example, the claim that millions every year shoot their guns in self-defense has led some to posit that there are more defensive gun uses than criminal uses. This assertion is inexplicable—not backed by any substantive evidence. We have yet to find a single study examining the question that does not show that criminal uses far outweigh defensive uses.
You might hear gun advocates substantiate this claim by comparing inflated survey numbers like Kleck’s with NCVS crime numbers. But defensive gun use surveys and the NCVS use different methodologies. To compare those two data sets is to break one of the most important laws of statistical analysis: You must always compare likes to likes.
And indeed, comparing NCVS results to NCVS results yields a very different picture—that more than 9 times as many people are victimized by guns than protected by them. Respondents in two Harvard surveys had more than 3 times as many offensive gun uses against them as defensive gun uses. Another study focusing on adolescences found 13 times as many offensive gun uses. Yet another study focusing on gun use in the home found that a gun was more than 6 times more likely to be used to intimidate a family member than in a defensive capacity. The evidence is nearly unanimous.
Beyond the defensive gun use versus criminal use dichotomy lies an important question: Are all defensive gun uses good? Undergirding gun advocates’ rhetoric touting the millions of defensive gun uses every year is the assumption that these uses are necessarily good. However, most cases of defensive gun use are not of gun owners heroically defending their families from criminals.
Kleck himself admitted in 1997, in response to criticism of his survey, that 36 to 64 percent of the defensive gun uses reported in the survey were likely illegal—meaning the firearm was used to intimidate or harm another person rather than for legitimate self-defense. His conjecture was confirmed by a Harvard study showing that 51 percent of defensive gun uses in a large survey were illegal according to a panel of 5 judges. This was even after the judges were told to take the respondents at their word, deliberately ignoring the tendency of respondents to portray themselves in a positive light.
Let’s assume for a moment that Kleck and Getz’s estimates are accurate. Rather than being a boon to civilized society, then, these estimates of 1 million to 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually would instead indicate an epidemic of irresponsible gun owners—millions! Lucky for us, despite what the NRA’s favorite criminologists claim, this clearly isn’t the case.
The myth of widespread defensive gun use is at the heart of the push to weaken already near catatonic laws controlling the use of guns and expand where good guys can carry guns to bars, houses of worship and college campuses—all in the mistaken belief that more “good guys with guns” will help stop the “bad guys.” As Wayne LaPierre of the NRA railed in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.”
But the evidence clearly shows that our lax gun laws and increased gun ownership, spurred on by this myth, do not help “good guys with guns” defend themselves, their families or our society. Instead, they are aiding and abetting criminals by providing them with more guns, with 200,000 already stolen on an annual basis. And more guns means more homicides. More suicides. More dead men, women and children. Not fewer.
are the right-wing, gun fellators LYING, again?
stupid article believed and reposted by even stupider people.
No one claims there are millions that use their guns in self defense every year.
Yeah, my first question was who is making that claim
I'm pretty sure if guns are restricted/outlawed to a great degree, the ratio of criminal to defensive uses will be more extreme, or, by definition, even infinite.
LOL thinking you can erradicate guns in the US. Even if you make them illegal, they will be flowing in the black markets and actually make criminals even richer
dumbasses
you'd be pretty wrong in your cer ude
If gun purchases, ownership were heavily regulated, all y'all redneck Good Guys would still be able to have all the guns you want, but it would cost a lot more (annual registration fee, mandatory theft/liability insurance, gun carrier would have to show le and insurance, just like with a car, etc). the higher the barriers to purchase and ownership, the much better chance of keeping Bad Guys from having guns.
The Bad Guys caught with guns would lose them, be fined or jailed, and their guns destroyed.
Gun Owners who "lose" their guns, would also be fined, and have their guns confiscated for x months or more.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-20-2015 at 10:42 AM.
that's what the guys who started the Prohibition said
Everyone watch the video I posyed if you want to see defensive gun use in action
Cost a lot more?
Only the wealthy could afford guns?
I can see the logic in that. Thanks.
Also, over 90% of crimes committed with firearms are committed with illegal firearms. I fail to see how your societal design would alter that metric.
Don't feel bad, Fuzzy. At least you have boutons on your side.
Fuzzy is just baby boutons.
It cited multiple accounts of people and organizations doing just that. Quit projecting your arrogant ass onto everything.
Use of a gun in the commission of a crime makes it an illegal gun. That doesn't posit much.
There is a physical addiction associated with owning a gun? Shall we discuss the comparable manufacturing of the products in question?
Prohibition wasn't so much about addiction but rather about behavior. In that light, the allegory makes sense.
Addiction and behavior go hand in hand.
It did not.
It referred to ONE obscure 21 year old random survey of about 2000 people.
LOL multiple accounts.
LOL Fuzzy agenda.
The Kleck Study.
http://heartland.org/policy-do ent...-bound-misfire was linked in the article.
http://www.npr.org/2012/12/21/167824...guy-with-a-gun Here is the NRA again linked in the article.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/myth-...nt-be-accurate An Ohio organization too.
You didn't read the article did you?
They linked a gallup poll indicating that 60% of people who own guns think exactly what he claims noone is thinking.
So you have other obscure references to the same obscure study. Buckeye Firearms Organization?
They linked a gallup poll indicating that 60% of people who own guns think exactly what he claims noone is thinking.
http://www.armedwithreason.com/shoot...-lott-of-lies/
Here is another guy using the data.
The poll speaks to the premise, the notion that gun ownership protects from crime and injury. If you want to fixate on the particulars of the Kleck study that is fine but the other links all speak to that in particular. It's all from the second paragraph of the article following the series of anecdotes where they list how pervasive the 1995 study is still today. The first of course was the link to the study itself and discussed its methods and conclusions.
You didn't read the article or if you did, you didn't do it very well.
i in no way believe that millions in the USA use their guns for self defense every year.
I absolutely believe that millions in the USA own guns for self defense.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
