WaPo: Congressional deal could fund gun violence research for first time since 1990s

See the part underlined? A police report was filed. Those are normally the extreme cases. Most don't need a police report filed. Simply displaying a gun can prevent violence. In those cases most people let it go and never report it to the police. Part of Kleck's survey included such uses. Also Lambert makes the mistake of assuming that just because not all robberies and burglaries result in violence that the ones where guns were used defensively would also not have resulted in possible violence on the part of the perpetrator. It's kind of like estimating how our country would have been different had Hillary won the election on her first run instead of Obama. Its impossible to do so because it never happened. Any such statistical model based on such is suspect. Kleck didn't attempt to guess, his study was based on an actual survey of over 5,000 respondents conducted by phone and those phone numbers were randomly generated. In statistics such a survey is going to be far more accurate than using a model like Lambert uses which makes assumptions from the start.

In any case the CDC said around 500,000 to 3 million. Meaning that they used different studies. Klecks was just the top end. The lowest was 500,000. I find it interesting that everyone always concentrates on Klecks but never says a word about any of the other studies.

 

Every life lost period is a tragedy. No matter the reason.

 

All of which is ultimately meaningless and irrelevant in the wake of the Heller and McDonald rulings, holding that firearms ownership and use for legitimate purposes is a constitutional right, and no amount of the criminal misuse of firearms can change this fact. No matter how many firearm-related homicides occur, their numbers are still not a legitimate reason for attempting prohibitions on entire classes of firearms, simply because their illegal use seems more prominent than their legal use.

 

Name the modern technological development that has rendered firearms obsolete for the purpose of personal defense. Not merely in carefully selected, cherry picked situations and circumstances, but rather in all circumstances where one faces the threat of great bodily harm and/or death due to the actions of outside participants that they have no say or control over.

 

It is how the real world works. Accept it. Deal with it. Move on.

Then the other fifty one percent of successful suicides in the united states simply do not matter and do not count as tragedies, simply because no firearm was used?

 

Every suicide is a tragedy. Providing psychological care to all people in need would greatly reduce suicide as well.

 

I agree 100%. Scandinavia and Canada really care for all their citizens -- even those who can not produce.

 

Modern World has resources to make survival of all people much more likely.

 

To what extent? One week? Two weeks? A month? Ten years? How long-term is survival when pertaining to the matter of suicides?

 

Not if those who ultimately go about ending their own existence do not seek out such care. If they refuse to seek treatment, no level of care provided will make any difference. And unless said individuals are forced to seek help by a court order, there is nothing that can be done for those that simply do not want help.

 

Canada and Scandinavia have GDP per capita about the same as USA. They ban almost all guns. They help all people in need. They are humane.

 

None of which matters, as the united states is not located in either the nation of Scandinavia, or the nation of Canada.

 

Most people with mental illness considering suicide are very ambivalent.

 

USA should follow successful Humanitarian practices of these nations.

 

Prohibiting the legal ownership of firearms, all in the name of trying to reduce the number of suicides experienced in a given year, is not a humanitarian practice. Not when doing such would directly lead to felony convictions, prison sentences, destroyed families, individuals killed for trying to resist legal action, and countless disarmed individuals being left at the mercy of the criminal element which will continue to remain armed and able to offend at their leisure.

Firearms amount to less that fifty percent of the number of successful suicides committed in the united states in a given year. Therefore, unless the government is willing to equally target every manner one goes about utilizing to end their own existence, no meaningful change would occur. There would simply be a shift from the use of one implement to another.

 

What qualifies as being "humane" is entirely open to interpretation.

 

In my opinion, Canada and Scandinavia are humane in caring for all people.

 

The nations of Canada and Scandinavia to not care for all people, only select groups.

 

Kleck did not correct the problem of false positives (people falsely claiming to have used a gun in self defense). Neither have other similar surveys. 500,000 to 3 million is likely to be a gross overestimate. If you keep using the same flawed methodology then you'll keep getting the same flawed results.

Interestingly, according to the National Crime Victim Survey (NCVS) there are only about 100,000 defensive gun uses each year. The NCVS asks respondents what measures they took to protect themselves against a crime. It does not ask specifically about guns. So it appears that the results vary a lot depending on the questions asked.

But even if there are 3 million DGU's and even if each DGU is 100% effective at stopping a crime it is very unlikely that the number of lives saved by guns equals or exceeds the number of lives taken by guns. Only a fraction of a percent of crimes result in the death of the victim. Let's assume a fatality rate of one in 300:

3,000,000 crimes stopped / 300 = 10,000 lives saved

The number of gun deaths is 3 to 4 times that.

 

More facts about why the pros of guns are outweighed by the cons:

"We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective....

"Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable....

"Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action."
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Interesting. So most claimed cases of defensive gun use are probably cases of criminal gun use (according to judges). People are more likely to report being a victim of offensive gun use than having used a gun in self defense in surveys. A gun does not appear to be a superior tool for protecting oneself against a crime.

 

The findings of Arthur Kellermann are just as flawed, and for the same reason.

Thus demonstrating that surveys cannot be relied on as if they were scientific evidence. Perhaps it is simply time to stop using surveys with regards to this particular subject.

Suicides do not count, as they are a matter of a personal choice. Therefore they will not be discussed.

 

The opinions of the judges that were consulted on this particular matter are of no relevance, as judges are not experts with regard to the legality or illegality of particular actions and/or activities. They are no more capable of making accurate, sweeping generalized assumptions about a collection of accounts, than any other private individual. Their position does not lend them any greater expertise than the average, random citizen.

 

"In social science research, social desirability bias is a type of response bias that is the tendency of survey respondents to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others. It can take the form of over-reporting 'good behavior' or under-reporting 'bad,' or undesirable behavior."

Just a 1% increase in survey respondents claiming to have used a gun in self defense due to this bias would make the results of the survey inaccurate by millions (1% of the US population is over 3 million). I don't understand how Kellermann's research could be affected by the same bias.

People who attempt suicide are not in a rational enough state of mind to make responsible choices.

 

Judges know much more about the law than the average person. They are in a much better position to judge whether or not a claimed defensive gun use is legal.

 

Such as asking criminals and their known associates if they have been engaged in illegal activity recently?

Countless thousands of individuals make irresponsible choices and decisions every day for which they are not in a rational enough state of mind to make, yet choose to do so regardless. It is an integral part of basic human nature, and nothing will ever change that.

The real world does not care, and does not offer second chances. If that is not acceptable, that is simply too bad, as it is the nature of reality. One who leaps off a tall building may have time to regret making their decision shortly before landing, but it ultimately changes nothing.