Why Am I Not Surprised?
Defensive gun use (DGU) happens more regularly in the United States than gun crimes, according to data the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) never publicized. http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/22/guns-save-lives-cdc-never-publicized/
Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck has been arguing that point for a quarter of a century, saying that his own research led him to believe that DGU was far more prevalent than gun-control advocates claim.
The CDC’s data, collected a few years after Kleck’s survey, appears to corroborate his findings, Reason.com reported. The question asked in the CDC survey addressed the use or threatened use of a firearm to deter a crime. “During the last 12 months, have you confronted another person with a firearm, even if you did not fire it, to protect yourself, your property, or someone else?”
Kleck, upon reviewing the CDC’s data, noted just how close it came to mirroring his own.
The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996–1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense. This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995)….CDC’s results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.
Many gun control advocates have complained about the fact that the CDC is limited with regard to research on gun violence. A 1996 amendment to a spending bill bars the organization from using congressionally allocated funds to “advocate or promote gun control.”
What those fighting for stronger gun-control generally leave out is the fact that the CDC is not barred from doing any research on gun violence — and the research it has done in the last two decades has largely corroborated Kleck’s findings.
Category: Dumbass Bullshit, Gun Grabbing Fascists, Guns
Here we go again with facts, logic and Common Sense, things that the left is allergic to and totally ignores.
The 2nd A and those states that have right-to-carry laws do not owe their existence to statistics. When one departs–for any reason–from the Constitutional and statutory bases for firearm possession, one invites the gun grabbers to muddy the waters, appeal to emotion, and otherwise do what you suggest, which is to play into the grabbers’ hands. The numbers are whatever the whatever the numbers are. I have a right to a firearm, c/o the 2nd A and a right to carry it concealed or openly c/o my state’s Constitution and relevant statutes.
Those documents just enumerate that right, the Right to Self-Preservation is a Natural Right.
No document written by Man can strip you of what Nature’s God hath given.
It’s time for the Children of the Feels recognize this fact.
The 2nd A is not narrowly written for self preservation. Certainly, a firearm may be possessed for that purpose or potential purpose but the Constitution doesn’t limit it to that purpose. If one wants merely to own a firearm for target practice and, when not being used, triple locks it and keeps no ammo in his home, that’s fine with the Constitution.
A firearm without ammo is a useless club, not an arm.
Tell ya what, you do it that way and tell me how you think you would do in a home invasion.
David. WTF are you talking about? It’s as if some said, “My favorite call is blue” and you responded, “Mine is an apple.”
2/17: That we have an independently-existing right to keep and bear arms which is recognized and protected by the 2nd Amendment is one thing.
To have statistics to show why this independently-existing right is important and is most often exercised for good is another thing. It adds a defensive perimeter that the tyrants must overcome in their attack of our rights.
IMHO, defensive perimeters are good things to have.
Well, we’ll just have to disagree. Did the Framers conduct a survey before adding the Bill of Rights? If statistics showed that there is statistically no defensive use of firearms, would that effectively nullify the 2nd A? Arguing stats is arguing for argument’s sake when it comes to a Constitutional right. It only helps those who would eradicate that right.
Cav, you are standing on principle which is admirable but not always the winning argument. Leftists don’t give a damn about God-given or natural rights. Consider the validity of Mao Ze Dung’s axiom that, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun,” because you can bet the farm that the truly hard core lefties believe it. They won’t be so anti-gun once they’ve disarmed their political opposition. Only when they’re in control, will they publicly acknowledge the necessity for their side to possess firearms, “to maintain public order” or some such.
Lefties know the truth about guns, they just don’t want all their “useful idiots” to know it. That’s why they try to conceal contrary evidence such as this CDC study. And it’s all politics to them, with whatever you consider the “inalienable” basis of your 2d Amendment rights totally meaningless to them if it stands in the way of their taking political control.
You ask, “If statistics showed that there is statistically no defensive use of firearms, would that effectively nullify the 2nd A?” You can bet your sweet ass it would in the eyes of hard core lefties and they would beat the American public over the head with it to justify disarming us.
When one side doesn’t acknowledge “natural” or “God given” rights, instead saying there is only privilege granted by power, then the attempt to argue is almost futile.
Many on the left also now rather openly apply this false view to speech, and other rights.
“But we will be -nice- tyrants!”
Sure they will. Just like Uncle Joe, Mao, Adolph, Pol Pot, Kim, and the Iranian Ayatollahs were/are “nice tyrants”.
I think what Cav is saying is that you don’t need a specific reason to own a firearm. The 2A doesn’t say it’s only for self-defense. You can own a firearm for any reason; hell even if you just like the way it looks or are a collector.
Tying a reason for firearm ownership to a specific reason under the 2A might (in the eyes of some) invalididate the 2A if that reason was no longer valid.
True enough…don’t confuse the empty headed nitwits with the truth! It makes the dizzy, oops, they are already dizzy lol….that bit of information needs to be sent to every rag newspaper in the country and every liberal/socialist/communist news channel on tv!
This is my surprised look.
Mine, too. lol. I vaguely remember someone mentioning this research a long time ago but had forgotten who.
This confirms what should be obvious. Of course the media won’t report this, because it doesn’t fit the narrative of the evil black, crowd-killing AR-15.
I’ve been writing a gun blog for several years on another site that I won’t name here.
I put it out that it is a God Given right to self defense against any and all comers which specifically includes tyrannical governmental incursions…
I think I was the one that brought it up before, I try to stay up on all the political machinations regarding the 2A.
My life was saved by a gun, twice and neither I nor the neighbor that showed up at exactly the right time…
And you tell me there is no God, if not, why was he at home that day instead of at work ???
It’s not survival of the fittest, it’s survival of the one with the best Guardian Angel like mine, Big Elmer. I certainly have gotten my money’s (prayers) worth out of that poor guy or gal, whichever they are !!!
Amen. My good ol Mark IV Series 70 is why I haven’t had my brains smashed in on a wall by a violent drunken roommate. Amazing how looking at the big hole on the front of that thing will calm folks down.
“Amazing how looking at the big hole on the front of that thing will calm folks down.”
Yup, had to do it twice in my life and you’re right: calms ’em down real fast.
Being a thug loses its charm quickly when making poor victim selections.
So does the red dot on the chest. I then move the red dot to the forehead. Joe
Defensive Gun Use by licensed owners is reducing Offensive Gun Use by unlicensed criminals according to my back of the envelope calculations. The final adjusted prevalence of 2.48% therefore implies that guns were used defensively by licensed owners about 7.2 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.
My calculations prove that I can make shit up just as convincingly as any PhD criminologist using 20+ year old data. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. When news breaks I fix it. Remember, The Left can’t spell believe without the “lie.”
“shall not be infringed…” Pretty damn clear to me. Don’t need no lies, damn lies, or statistics to help me interpret the why or where for. Libtards know bester and are smarter than us unwashed masses of deplorables. I mean, HELLO, they became multi-millionaires, just from the salary of a congress type critter.