Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun-totin' property owner kills a guy trying to defend his cousin, who urinated on a gravel bar (374 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Obama Commissioned CDC to Study Gun Self Defense (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    karlschneider, erratic

    On the low side almost twice as many people defended themselves successfully with a gun than people that used guns illegally.  On the high side 10 times as many people successfully defended themselves.  And the following comes directly out of the CDC report:

    Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

    The explanation of the entire study is here with links to the complete study (which is long and boring).

    http://www.slate.com/...

    See #7

    Also see this perspective:  http://www.canadafreepress.com/...

    The point is -- if I have a gun for defense and know how to use it, I will be safer if attacked.  Period.  And I am more likely to defend myself than be harmed in an attack.

    There is a reason Obama commissioned this report.  He had commissioned a DOJ report to give him an idea of the effectiveness of his various proposals.  The DOJ report said that none of Obama's proposals would work.  And yes you can find it without the yellow highlights added by NRA -- but it is a faster read and they do get credit for using Freedom of Information Act to get a copy of another buried report.

    http://www.nraila.org/...

    I am not a huge conspiracy nut -- but both of these reports are buried, hard to find, only public due to Freedom of Information Act (thank goodness for the 1st amendment), not reported in mainstream media ... and absolutely prove that control laws being proposed won't work and that citizens use guns a lot defensively with better outcomes compared to those without guns.

    I don't know the facts of the MO dispute.  I can say that it seems we have three idiots.  The second that gun came out and two warning shots were fire the prudent thing to do would be to get off that gravel bar and back into the boat and go someplace else (and report the guy).  Not to pick up a rock or rocks and move to grab the guys arm.  If you put three idiots together it is not hard to see someone getting hurt or dead, gun or no gun.

    Since the results were the polar opposite of what Obama wanted it to say, this report has been suppressed (or under reported anyway) in the main stream news and has not been mentioned by Obama in his gun control speeches.  

    •  Kleck's Work is Problematic to Say the Least (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      erratic, Tod

      As has been pointed out repeatedly over the years (and if you look at the report it relies largely on Kleck's work) the estimates by Kleck are based on several problematic assumptions:

      1) People are accurate in their account of what a defensive gun use is.  People tend to present themselves in a more positive light than reality when asked about themselves.  This might mean that they think they actually had a legitimate gun use, but actually didn't.  Cases such as the clown who shot some young men who turned around in his driveway is a recent example--if you asked him he was simply defending himself.  In reality, he was the criminal.  

      2)  People have an accurate view of time.  People don't have accurate time horizons.  When you ask someone about whether something has happened in the recent past, highly emotional events often seem more recent.  I do this all of the time as do most people.  So when Kleck asks about the last year, the events could be any number of years.

      3)  A small sample of rare events leads to an accurate extrapolation of the phenomenon.  The problem being that while he had a sample size of 5,000 for the entire survey, the actual sample of people reporting DGUs was still tiny and especially subject to false positives.  Extrapolating from them ignores that the tiny subsample would have far greater margin of errors.  

      The problem is that there is very little reliable research on DGUs, but by using the numbers as Kleck has, just in reports of actual hitting the perpetrator we would see thousands more perpetrators wounded or killed that simply don't exist in reports by police.  

      The survey of current research relies on what research there is even though that research is clearly flawed.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site