2 million anonymous people reported in the survey that they used a gun in self defense. Of these, how many reported their acts of self-defense to the police? How many acts of self-defense using a firearm have been reported to the police?
Even if it was 5million, the answer would be moot. Police don’t care if a gun was used in self defense unless it was involved in some way with the crime (ie if someone was shot). As was noted in that article, police forms don’t have box to check if there was defensive gun use. Then there is also the issue of illegal guns used for defense which would NEVER be reported to police.
Well gee…Kleck must be right then?
I mean, we have somewhere around 400,000 gun related crimes committed in the US annually (cited earlier). We have 2.5 million defensive gun uses so law abiding gun owners use their gun over six times as much as criminals do. Truly remarkable!
Also as noted earlier this would represent better than a 20% success rate at defense compared to all crimes committed in the US in a given year. One-in-five bad guys are beaten back! Again, truly remarkable.
With near 3 million uses of guns (2.5 million good guys + 400,000 bad guys) we get ~12,000 deaths (not including suicides) and 70,000 wounded (2005 data, cite). That’s 2.7% of all gun uses actually hitting someone. Either everyone is a bad shot or they are just waving their guns around a lot.
Let’s look at that a little closer:
Kleck notes that 15% of all gunshot wounds are fatal (his words, cite p164). Kleck’s data notes that 8% of the respondents believe they hit the perp. Kleck himself thinks this is overstated so we can go to the NCVS survey which lists 3% reporting they think they hit the perp. I’ll use the lower percentage as it is more generous in this calculation to the pro-gun side.
2.5M DGUs x .03 woundings x .15 fatal wounds = 11,250 justifiable homicides
Interesting since the FBI reports 245 justifiable homicide incidents (by private citizens) in 2008.
Bit off that 11,000 number.
Like I said, the number just does not make sense in any rational view of the world.
Whoops!
Cite for the above here.
A celebratory ejaculation being singularly inappropriate for a fox pass, might I suggest “Ooops!”
Quite the opposite. It was the perception of criminals that caused them to switch to day time robberies instead of night time burglaries. At least as far as that article describes. It was fear of armed conflict that discouraged home invasions. Was this fear justified? Hard to say, but the section I quoted above described home invasions going down because of increased perception of gun ownership, and not from ACTUAL gun ownership.
The don’t need to be scared of home invasions because criminals have admitted they’d rather rob empty houses. The benefits of gun ownership perception are in place. People that don’t own guns currently freeload off those that do. Like I said, the only thing that would change home invasion rates at this point would be media attention one way or another. If the news reported tomorrow that more homes are armed, hot robberies would go down. If the news reported fewer, rates would go up. But it’s based on perception, not actual guns.
So the gun you own has no actual deterrence in and of itself, it might as well be carved out of soap.
No, doesn’t ignore it. I’ve recognized that it’s all about perception. The effectiveness of deterrence at this point is a maintaining that perception.
Other than fire extinguishers, I think a good comparison are those little black bubble cameras you seen in stores. Putting in video surveillance helps deter crime. But at this point, the fake ones are as effective a deterrent as the real ones.
Note that “*children and teens *” includes 17yo gangbangers shot during gang wars, “kids” with several shootings already to their credit. Worthless numbers. Tell me how many 12yo and under are shot.
I Agree the number seems high. Hard to tell with out seeing the questions that Kleck asked.
Nowhere does it say that it is ‘gun against gun’ defense. Or that the criminal had a gun or a shot was fired. Your math falls apart right there.
I would like to see the questionnaire that Kleck put together. I think that 2.5 million is high. I don’t think that 1-2 hundred thousand is.
uh, no thanks, you are always welcome to look it up for yourself. If you read my post before the part you quoted I told you how many pre-schoolers.
But you know, you’re right, those could be gang bangers too.
Wait, why does it matter if it’s gang bangers? They die in pools too.
You’re right that nowhere it says it is gun-on-gun defense. Thing is I never said that either and my math is fine.
My first example was that ~400,000 crimes are committed with a gun annually. Versus the 2.5 million that makes gun defenders using guns 6x as much as gun criminals. Sure there are more crimes where guns are not used but all the criminals who do use them are swamped by gun defenders if that 2.5 million is to be believed.
Now, for the second part I was not using the 400,000 number. I was using the 11,877,218 cited earlier (here’s the cite) which are all crimes committed in the US annually (well, seems violent ones anyway where you’d want to use a gun…near as I can tell does not count white collar crime which you would not need a gun to defend yourself from anyway).
So…
2,500,000 / 11,877,218 = 0.21
There is your 20% and it is all crimes, with or without a gun.
If my math is faulty point it out (not very good at math though so might be wrong).
It was stated that the only use of a gun was to kill something. I gave an example of how that was wrong.
I didn’t say that the equipment is equivalent, I said (and you quoted) that I didn’t see the sports as being very different. True, you can kill with a gun more efficiently than with a bow or golf club. On the other hand, both are sports of skill based on hitting a target at difficult ranges or through obstacles using tools which are better at killing people than your bare hands. Either way, glossing over the fact that only a fool wouldn’t describe a bow and arrow as a weapon seems pretty disingenuous. In the case of a handgun, the bow is actually arguably a better weapon. Most people who have examined the wounds from both a handgun and a hunting arrow in an animal would rather be shot with a handgun if they had to choose. True, these are not the arrows that they use for target shooting, but the rounds bought for target shooting are very different from the ones you use to kill things, too.
You’re right Wack a Mole I missed where you said ALL violent crimes. After all, the thread is about home invasion.
As I said, I think the number may be closer to 100-200 thousand (the info that Bones linked to)
Let’s look at this -
Did Kleck report the number of DGUs where the gun was actually fired against those instances where it was not?
I can’t find the numbers, but I think that in the majority of DGU’s, the gun is not even fired. I can’t find any stats on that, but would like to see them if anyone can dig them up.
Let’s take 150,000 DGU’s. Then cut that in half for those that actually fired. 75000 X .03 x .15 = 338. That falls in line with this -
So, as I responded to your question –
I think 80 is way, way low, and 2.5 million is way high. The 100,000 to 200,000 thousand number is more reasonable, and in my mind, quite substantial.
Well, we can do this with almost anything can’t we? Maybe a competition to see who can drop a bomb from five miles up and get it closest to the target. That you can also drop it on people doesn’t mean we can’t use it for sport right?
The gun was invented to kill people. It is a weapon. A golf club was invented to whack a little ball as a sport. That you can use a gun to hit a paper target or a golf club to whack someone over the head does not change their primary uses.
It is disingenuous to suggest that guns are peachy because you can target shoot. People can target shoot with a GAU-8 Avenger, 30 MM Cannon. Doesn’t change its primary purpose which is to blow the living shit out of people.
No idea. I have not read his whole book. I presume the 8% he cites is asking the people he surveyed, “Did you shoot your gun?” which gave him some number then following up with those people and asking, “Did you hit the person?” Just a guess though on may part but seems reasonable.
FWIW and FTR I agree on both counts. I said “80” taking the NRA magazine monthly cites and multiplying it by 12 months. I do not really think that is all there is (and have said so a few times in this thread). It was meant to be an absurdly low number to contrast with the absurdly high number.
It is also quite without any foundation whatsoever. It’s like saying, “One group says that all but a very few U.F.O.s can be explained by normal scientific means, and another group says that we have been visited by aliens 10,00 times at the very minimum, so I think we can safely estimate that aliens have visited our planet approximately 1000 times.”
You are comparing reported and documented incidents on one side to anonymous surveys on the other and trying to average the two, and I don’t think there is any logical way to do that.
What is without foundation?
We do know that there has been DGU. We don’t know if extraterrestrials have visited us. I’m not trying to average it.
Bones link seems reasonable that there have been 100-200 thousand DGU.
We don’t know how people really responded to Klecks survey, or the actual questions asked. Or do we? I would love to see that survey.
I have used guns to scare bears out of the yard. Is that a DGU? Depends on the question.
Here’s his book. No idea how complete it is online (sometimes Google has parts but not all of a book) nor do I know if he details his survey methodology in there but the best I can give ya for this if you want to wade through it (hoping you will so I won’t have to 
).
Well, we certainly can. Hell, we can use fleets of H-Bombs and see if we can hit Jupiter and call it a sport. It still doesn’t change that I’m talking about things that people actually do, not what they might. On the other hand, your argument, its reductio ad absurdum.
The club was invented to kill people. Several hundreds of thousands of years later people figured out other uses, such as to hit balls. I can still kill a person with one blow with most of them. Hitting the base of the back of the skull is all it takes, even with a light club.
Now that you know that you’re wrong about clubs, want to talk about the bow and arrow?
Thanks, I’ll take a look at it. But not today. Much painting to do, and fun to be had. Happy 4th.
Yes the club is possibly the oldest weapon known to mankind (maybe a rock beats it on that count).
The Golf Club was not a result of people saying, “Hey! I have the club I brain people with but I wonder if I can hit a ball a few hundred yards with it and make it a game?”
A golf club, while passable to brain people with, is not a club anyone would want to wade into battle with. A stout tree branch might serve you better on the battlefield.
The bow and arrow are likewise a weapon. Yes they are used for sport same as a gun but their invention was to kill things (hunt animals or people). They are not popular today because they are not easily concealable and they take a lot of skill to use effectively compared to a gun. Shooting hay bales does not undo any of that.