do you believe Kleck's numbers?

[yuppor]

he says that over 1 million times per year, a gun in CIVILIAN hands prevents a crime. Nothing is said about animal attacks, either.

 

[thoricuncle]

Those are hard numbers to get. First off, if someone displays a firearm and the bad guy runs off, there is usually no police report. Second, when people are polled with this question, they will tend to answer in the negative so as not to implicate themselves.

CDC numbers put it between 800,000 and 1.2 million depending on the research methodology used. So I would think 1 million is not too far off.

A good test of this number is do you know of anyone who falls into this category? My sister is one of them.

 

[UATKP]

Well, I think it could be pretty close to correct. I know two people that fit into this category.

 

[CharlieK]

Kleck conducted that study several years ago to counter the inconcievably poorly conducted study:


Violent Death in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership

by Arthur Kellermann, M.D. at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control in Atlanta.

Kellerman looked at shootings in homes and concluded that "if someone has a gun in his or her home, the gun is 42 times more likely to be used to shoot a family member than an intruder."

What Kellerman failed to consider is that the events that he "investigated" had a common thread: they involved families that contained people who were convicted felons, drug dealers, or those convicted of domestic violence, etc.

 

[AndeyHall]

Kleck conducted that study several years ago to counter the inconcievely poorly conducted study:


Violent Death in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership

by Arthur Kellermann, M.D. at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control in Atlanta.

Kellerman looked at shootings in homes and concluded that "if someone has a gun in his or her home, the gun is 42 times more likely to be used to shoot a family member than an intruder."

What Kellerman failed to consider is that the events that he "investigated" had a common thread: they involved families that contained people who were convicted felons, drug dealers, or those convicted of domestic violence, etc.

Well that does make sense somewhat because studies have shown that you are much more likely to be killed by a family member than a total stranger.

 

[AndeyHall]

he says that over 1 million times per year, a gun in CIVILIAN hands prevents a crime. Nothing is said about animal attacks, either.

But think about it, that's only roughly 1 out of every 350 people every year. I don't find that hard to believe.

 

[Bikenut]

The number I believe is that 100% of criminals and tyrants (but then.... both are the same thing!) want their victims to be unarmed.

Make no mistake... an anti gunner IS a wannabe tyrant that uses emotional touchy feely arguments to hide their desperate desire to control what other people are "allowed" to do.. and what other people are NOT "allowed" to do.

After all, from petty criminal to tyrannical politician to just an ordinary egotistical turd jerk that thinks they are better than other people, the only thing that stops their agenda of being top dog and lording it over everyone.......... is a cat with a gun.

 

[yuppor]

there's 13 million ex felons "on the street", so it's highly likely that most families have a felon in their home, several times per year. Here's what's rich, guys. How many attackers get SHOT by civilians in justfiable self defense, hmm? The number is like 10,000 per year. So it's only necessary to hit somebody with a bullet about 1% of the time. Which is a good thing, because most people, to include cops, are way too slow, inaccurate, not able to use tactics properly, etc. to actually handle a situation with minimal risk to themselves and other innocents, and maximum effectiveness vs the bad guy.

even when

 

[Bikenut]

there's 13 million ex felons "on the street", so it's highly likely that most families have a felon in their home, several times per year. Here's what's rich, guys. How many attackers get SHOT by civilians in justfiable self defense, hmm? The number is like 10,000 per year. So it's only necessary to hit somebody with a bullet about 1% of the time. Which is a good thing, because most people, to include cops, are way too slow, inaccurate, not able to use tactics properly, etc. to actually handle a situation with minimal risk to themselves and other innocents, and maximum effectiveness vs the bad guy.

even when

Ok... you just threw around a whole bunch of numbers... got cites and/or links to actual factual sources to support those numbers?

 

[CharlieK]

Well that does make sense somewhat because studies have shown that you are much more likely to be killed by a family member than a total stranger.

Not in my house, I'm not.

Edit: You just reiterated Kellerman's flawed conclusion. It is flawed because Kellerman looked ONLY at cases in which someone was shot in a home.

 

[Martin Hruz]

Those are hard numbers to get. First off, if someone displays a firearm and the bad guy runs off, there is usually no police report. Second, when people are polled with this question, they will tend to answer in the negative so as not to implicate themselves.

...do you know of anyone who falls into this category? My sister is one of them.

3 Uses of my firearm. One landed a guy in prison. 2 others, no report, no fuss, no muss. Doubt my first one ended up in any stats anywhere either since I didn't shoot him.

 

[K7lvo]

Kleck conducted that study several years ago to counter the inconcievely poorly conducted study:


Violent Death in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership

by Arthur Kellermann, M.D. at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control in Atlanta.

Kellerman looked at shootings in homes and concluded that "if someone has a gun in his or her home, the gun is 42 times more likely to be used to shoot a family member than an intruder."

What Kellerman failed to consider is that the events that he "investigated" had a common thread: they involved families that contained people who were convicted felons, drug dealers, or those convicted of domestic violence, etc.

How is this POSSIBLE??? It's against the law for those people to have guns...

 

[maybejim]

Kleck conducted that study several years ago to counter the inconcievely poorly conducted study:


Violent Death in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership

by Arthur Kellermann, M.D. at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control in Atlanta.

Kellerman looked at shootings in homes and concluded that "if someone has a gun in his or her home, the gun is 42 times more likely to be used to shoot a family member than an intruder."

What Kellerman failed to consider is that the events that he "investigated" had a common thread: they involved families that contained people who were convicted felons, drug dealers, or those convicted of domestic violence, etc.

Kellerman has never been associated with an "honest" study.

 

[yuppor]

google is your friend. The annual crime survey and Uniform Crime report, on DOJ's website are my sources. do you really "think" that 1 million people a year are being SHOT committing crimes? If it happened like that, there'd BE no more attacks on people, after one year, cause the punks whio do such things would all be dead or in wheelchairs! of COURSE they only get shot 1 time in 100 attacks. They don't even face a gun 1 time in 10 such crimes.

 

[AndeyHall]

google is your friend. The annual crime survey and Uniform Crime report, on DOJ's website are my sources. do you really "think" that 1 million people a year are being SHOT committing crimes? If it happened like that, there'd BE no more attacks on people, after one year, cause the punks whio do such things would all be dead or in wheelchairs! of COURSE they only get shot 1 time in 100 attacks. They don't even face a gun 1 time in 10 such crimes.

Here's the way I've heard it explained by Kleck:

The UCR is going to be pretty close to spot on with murders. Why? Because the UCR can only know REPORTED crime. Well it's kinda hard to not report a murder. Although many go unsolved, the death itself and the cause of death are usually always discovered.

Self defense by gun is almost a whole other issue. See you assumed that Kleck is referring to self defense by actually shooting the attacker or robber. Watch some of his interviews and he will blatantly say that isn't the case at all, and in fact, almost all cases in which guns are used for self defense, it is done without firing a single shot. In most cases the armed citizen just shows the gun and then verbally communicates that they have a gun and will use it.

So knowing what you know or at least should have seen plenty of times about the police arresting law abiding citizens for defending themselves with a gun but violating some BS technicality...if you just stopped a crime just by brandishing your gun, and even though you're pretty sure you were in the right, there is still that doubt in the back of your mind that you may have done something wrong and it just takes one cop with a bad attitude to mess your whole life up. So bearing that in mind, how likely are you to report it to the police? I know I wouldn't. It's not like they're going to solve any case or help in any way. They can only potentially make it worse for you.

So according to Kleck, people know this and so it mostly goes unreported. So his numbers come from actually going out and performing MASSIVE surveys and then scaling them in proportion to the US population.

 

[Martin Hruz]

do you really "think" that 1 million people a year are being SHOT committing crimes? If it happened like that, there'd BE no more attacks on people, after one year, cause the punks whio do such things would all be dead or in wheelchairs! of COURSE they only get shot 1 time in 100 attacks. They don't even face a gun 1 time in 10 such crimes.

Same thing is true for gun owners though. If we are all shooting our selves there would be no need for gun legislation... Has any one considered, the results of this study may be useless from a practical sense?

 

[Bikenut]

google is your friend. The annual crime survey and Uniform Crime report, on DOJ's website are my sources. do you really "think" that 1 million people a year are being SHOT committing crimes? If it happened like that, there'd BE no more attacks on people, after one year, cause the punks whio do such things would all be dead or in wheelchairs! of COURSE they only get shot 1 time in 100 attacks. They don't even face a gun 1 time in 10 such crimes.

Without my trying to be a jerk....

Providing cites and/or links to sources shows a willingness to stand behind the statements made.
It also is a way of being considerate by making it easy for others to check your sources.

So Sir... if the DOJ annual crime survey and Uniform Crime report are your sources all that is necessary is to use your friend google to find, and then provide, a link to those sources and add a snippet (a cite) of the pertinent sections that uphold your statements. Doing so does a service for all because folks can go directly to your sources, and the pertinent sections, and learn something.

 

[ezkl2230]

Those are hard numbers to get. First off, if someone displays a firearm and the bad guy runs off, there is usually no police report. Second, when people are polled with this question, they will tend to answer in the negative so as not to implicate themselves.

CDC numbers put it between 800,000 and 1.2 million depending on the research methodology used. So I would think 1 million is not too far off.

A good test of this number is do you know of anyone who falls into this category? My sister is one of them.

Kleck's number was derived by applying statistical analysis to a nationwide survey of individuals who indicated they had used a firearm in self defense at some point in time.

 

[ezkl2230]

Pair Kleck's numbers with Constitutional lawyer and criminologist Don Kates' research that determined that civilians using their firearms in self defense kill nearly three times more criminals each year than do police (between 2,000 - 3,000), yet police, who are supposedly highly trained to handle such events, are 5-½ times more likely to kill an innocent person than the civilian (11% for police versus 2% for civilians). The combination of statistics makes a compelling case for armed civilians.

 

[AndeyHall]

google is your friend. The annual crime survey and Uniform Crime report, on DOJ's website are my sources. do you really "think" that 1 million people a year are being SHOT committing crimes? If it happened like that, there'd BE no more attacks on people, after one year, cause the punks whio do such things would all be dead or in wheelchairs! of COURSE they only get shot 1 time in 100 attacks. They don't even face a gun 1 time in 10 such crimes.

And like I said previously, 1 million times a year may sound high, but that's only about 1 out of every 350 people. Get 350 people together and ask them if any of them have ever had to prevent themselves or someone else from being the victim of a crime by showing their gun or actually shooting it. I'm sure you'll have at least 1 hand raised, if not several.