Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

[SecularMotion]

Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense

We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal

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.

Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.

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.

Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home. We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

[tblue37]

1. KnR. nt

[Eleanors38]

2. Really old, dusty worn-out sod being turned again.

[ileus]

3. Better to have and not need, than need and not have.

I'll choose not to walk around as a willing victim.

Safety first and carry on my friends.

[gejohnston]

4. shill study

Last edited Fri Feb 21, 2014, 06:34 PM - Edit history (1)

funded by the same people who astroturf Brady Campaign. In fact, the entire department is funded by the same people who astro turf Brady Campaign. It is not peer reviewed is published in the department's in house organ instead of an actual criminology journal. I seriously doubt they would release the data for peer review, as was the case with most of these studies funded by the CDC. When the "study" was written Hemenway's assistants worked for VPC. Hemenway received an award from Brady Campaign for his gun control activism. None of his studies find their way in respected criminology jounals.

The study they knock was funded by the DoJ, was peer reviewed and was published in a criminology journal, not the FSU inhouse organ, where Dr. Kleck is the head of the criminology department. He also received the Michael J. Hindelang Award from the American Society of Criminology for the work that Hemenway spent so much time to "debunk".

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.

He started off with the assumption that there were false positives with no evidece, without mentioning false negatives. Here he admits that he started off with a pre determined conclusion and did not follow the scientific method.

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.

Here he is saying people admitted to committing crimes to some stranger on the phone. Were these judges familiar with the respondent's state law? Were these judges licensed in all of these states? Were these judges from a cross section of jurisdictions. How familiar were these judges familiar with each state's self defense law? I'm guessing no. If these judges in fact existed, are most likely from Massachusetts where Harvard is located and only familiar with MA law, if even that. For example, if a California responant said that he did not try to retreat, but "stood his ground" and continued to fire at the bad guy as he ran, these judges would likely rule that as illegal. Problem is, that is perfectly legal in California. Therefore, that would create a false negative.

[SecularMotion]

5. Gun Nut Logic

[center][/center]

[gejohnston]

6. complete illogic

no one believes concealed carry in itself would deter mass mass murder. The point is that it would mitigate the carnage, which has happened. BTW, cartoonists are propagandists and are rarely insightful. This guy isn't among the few.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. Your rebuttaal in Post #4 pretty much obliterated the OP so all he has left are cartoons

from an outfit called politifake, no less.

[DonP]

8. Smells of desperation

Frantic multiple Cut & Pastes of old stories, cartoons.

Somebody's in denial of the whole Shall Issue possibility for 2 states and a SCOTUS decision on carry.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. Did you also know that while he's striving ardently to disarm the American people

he also believes the US government has deliberately slaughtered Americans by the thousands. I could see someone thinking 9/11 was an inside job then concluding it was best to be armed to defend against future depredations but I can't see why someone would demand people be unarmed in that face of ruthless murderers.

I've asked him to reconcile those to 2 beliefs but he's quite dodgy.

[SecularMotion]

10. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

You can state your own opinion, but you can't state mine.

I've already told you that I'm not going to address your silly 2nd amendment strawman. So stop whining about it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. What words have I put in your mouth?

That you want to restrict access to guns as much as possible or that you believe the government has deliberately and maliciously slaughtered thousands of the very citizens you would see disarmed?

Which one am I wrong about?

[SecularMotion]

12. You're wrong about everything and you're on the wrong side of every issue.

I don't understand why you waste your time posting on a website for liberals. Go find another message board that supports your radical opinions.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. That's rather evasive.

Last edited Fri Feb 21, 2014, 06:24 PM - Edit history (1)

Explain how I have misrepresented your objective to make gun ownership as restrictive (or none existent) as possible.

Explain how I have misrepresented your belief that the US government murdered its own citizens.

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. You do, in fact, believe the US Government murdered its own citizens...

...and have said so many times:

https://www.google.com/search?q=secularmotion+9%2F11&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com#q=SecularMotion+9%2F11+site%3Ademocraticunderground.com

[SecularMotion]

22. Please don't try to put words in my mouth, you can only state your own opinion.

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. Your words are available to all through the link in post #20...

...and I stand by my statement

[SecularMotion]

25. You're right my words are available to all

and not one of those posts back up your accusation. They just prove that you're wrong again.

[sarisataka]

14. That's funny...

since if you were on the other side of the issue you would be used to people putting words in your mouth and stating your opinion.

Just yesterday a troll crawled out of its greasy cave, readily accusing every gun owner of being ready to break the law for nefarious purpose. The day prior the same troll accused me of expecting an armed confrontation with the government.
Of course when challenged on these stances the reply is either evasion, twisting of words or internet psych analysis telling you what you really think and say. Most often there is not reply as a troll must do what a troll does.

I can count on one hand the number of pro gun control regulars I have respect for, though I often disagree with them. Others are trolls, bigots, zealots or blindly misguided by good intentions...

As for activism, I dare say I am more of a gun control activist than most/all in the so called activist forum. In the last six months I have contacted all of my D.C. level reps about gun control telling what I disagreed with and what I fully supported; the latter being greater than the former. I spoke FTF with my state rep, bringing an outline of GC measures to enhance back ground checks and accountability of owners whose guns are used in crime. How many "activists" have even sent an email in support of GC legislation in between being self appointed commissars of a safe haven?

What do these two gun owners have in common:

Both would be allowed in only one of the two dedicated gun forums
EDIY- on further consideration I am wrong. Onr would get tombstoned. The other would be allowed to post in one of the forums, so i guess they don't have as much in common

[SecularMotion]

15. That's true

The majority of liberals find pro-gun opinions to be repugnant and the daily horror stories of gun violence reinforce those views. You're wasting your time trying to gain acceptance for support of gun rights on a liberal discussion board. You'd find greater support of gun rights and a "robust" 2nd amendment on a right wing discussion board.

[sarisataka]

16. Thank you for the courtesy of a reply

Your brief statement "That's true" tells me-

-those who favor "robust" GC do put words in the mouths of those who accept the 2nd Amendment enumerates an individual right and will twist words to state false opinions

-those who favor "robust" GC who simply troll this, and other, groups

-those who favor "robust" GC are often trolls, bigots, zealots or blindly misguided by good intentions

-GC activists are not actually very active except to maintain doctrinal purity

-Ms Giffords would not be welcome in GCRA

Even though- I support marriage equality, gender equality, unions, social support, fair taxation..., count among my role models Hubert H Humphrey, speak in favor of many gun crontrol proposals with Senators Klobuchar and Franken, Representative Mc Collum, have brought legislative proposals to MN Representative Tim Mahoney
-because I support the 2nd Amendment as written, affirmed by SCOTUS, recognized in the Democratic party platform and as spoken by the President, I should post on a right wing discussion board?

[SecularMotion]

17. As I said, you'd find greater support of your views on a right wing board.

A genuine old-fashioned liberal who understands gun rights

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/689164/posts

[sarisataka]

18. Very well,

If HHH is not liberal enough I cannot help you.

Have a nice day.

P.S. I would never have though to search FR for an HHH quote. Interesting...

I wonder if you would find any of these quotes there?

"Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." — Hubert Humphrey

"Fortunately, the time has long passed when people liked to regard the United States as some kind of melting pot, taking men and women from every part of the world and converting them into standardized, homogenized Americans. We are, I think, much more mature and wise today. Just as we welcome a world of diversity, so we glory in an America of diversity -- an America all the richer for the many different and distinctive strands of which it is woven." — Hubert Humphrey

"Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate." — Hubert Humphrey

"It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped." — Hubert Humphrey

"People in places many of us never heard of, whose names we can't pronounce or even spell, are speaking up for themselves. They speak in languages we once classified as ''exotic'' but whose mastery is now essential for our diplomats and businessmen. But what they say is very much the same the world over. They want a decent standard of living. They want human dignity and a voice in their own futures. They want their children to grow up strong and healthy and free." — Hubert Humphrey

"The great challenge which faces us is to assure that, in our society of big-ness, we do not strangle the voice of creativity, that the rules of the game do not come to overshadow its purpose, that the grand orchestration of society leaves ample room for the man who marches to the music of another drummer." — Hubert Humphrey

"There are not enough jails, not enough police, not enough courts to enforce a law not supported by the people." — Hubert Humphrey

"If there is dissatisfaction with the status quo, good. If there is ferment, so much the better. If there is restlessness, I am pleased. Then let there be ideas, and hard thought, and hard work. If man feels small, let man make himself bigger." — Hubert Humphrey

"This, then, is the test we must set for ourselves; not to march alone but to march in such a way that others will wish to join us." — Hubert Humphrey

"This is a little bit like busting a street drug dealer to get at the Colombian drug cartel," — Hubert Humphrey

"We're going to expose what the tobacco companies knew and when they knew it. The American public is going to know how the tobacco industry manipulated kids, manipulated nicotine and manipulated public policy. Congress and the Department of Justice are going to know the pervasiveness of the fraud," — Hubert Humphrey

"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." — Hubert Humphrey

"I do not feel that we should allow a shortage of funds to prevent cities from financing needed projects." — Hubert Humphrey

"Propaganda, to be effective, must be believed. To be believed, it must be credible. To be credible, it must be true." — Hubert Humphrey

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. You are not part of the mangement here, therefore your opinion on what is suitable...

...for discussion is irrelevant. You are not the first self-appointed zampolit/politruk/presbyter
we've been subjected to, and undoubtedly won't be the last.

I note that they all have one other thing in common: None of them are here anymore.
Most, if not all, have been banned by the actual admins.

[Loudly]

26. Pro gun sentiments do seem very much like racist and homophobic ones.

Out of place on a liberal board.

And liberal politicians who pander to that kind of voter do so out of fear of offending the fearful.

[gejohnston]

27. really?

how so? For example?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/31/negroes-and-the-gun-non-violent-winchesters-and-the-fine-art-of-concealed-carry-in-the-modern-civil-rights-movement/
http://www.amazon.com/Negroes-Gun-Black-Tradition-Arms-ebook/dp/B00E2RWQHM
http://www.pinkpistols.org/

[Loudly]

28. I know those are popular apologetics among gun enthusiasts.

But urban gun violence is the real harvest being reaped.

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. Shares, you'd be a bit more convincing if you were actually *doing* something about it...

...as opposed to peddling some rather, shall we say, singular interpretations of
Constitutional law online?

[gejohnston]

32. but most of that is in places where

guns are almost banned for law abiding people, and those folks can't legally buy guns any where. The deer hunter in Wyoming or Olympic target shooter isn't the cause of the problem. The real problem is the drug war and political corruption at city hall. It isn't the white, or any other color, skeet shooter or gun collector that is reaping the harvest. It is the suburbanite drug purchaser that creates the demand and no legal way to settle business disputes.

Fact is, like Boss Tweed and Tim Sullivan of old, and Chicago now, city hall profits while scapegoating deer hunters in Wyoming and single mothers in Texas. You read that correctly, Tim Sullivan, author of New York State's Sullivan law was a gangster. It was also the strictest gun control law outside the South. That is part of the reason why MAIG loses more members each year to the criminal justice system than elections.
Until then, it was mostly the South that had any serious gun control laws. North Carolina and Missouri passed universal background checks in 1919 and 1921 respectively. The Klan lobbied for and got Michigan's universal background check passed in 1925 after Ossian Sweet defended his home from white racist home invaders.
Of course I'm not saying Bloomberg and well meaning progressives who are today's gun control advocates are racists or gangsters. Not even remotely. I am simply pointing out that gun control have been used by different groups for different reasons. Today, some honestly think less guns will equal less crime. Some are culture warriors. Bloomberg is a right wing authoritarian and elitist who thinks there should be limits on first amendment "privileges", his word, because he knows better than the proles. He hired former Monsanto PR executive Shannan Watts to head MDA. I don't know where you live, but where I live white and people of color, LGBT equally own guns, hunt, and target shoot.
One of my biggest problems with gun control advocates is this: When they talk about "gun violence" how do they feel about the other 80 percent of violent crimes where guns are not used? When they talk about reducing "gun suicides" how do they feel about the other 48 percent of US suicides? That is when the cynic in me comes out.

When it was made public that MAIG was using NYC government servers and email, the Second Amendment Foundation did a NY FOIL, like a FOIA, request and got over 500 pages of emails between Bloomberg's office and K Street lobbyist Glaser, who is the face of MAIG. The emails dated 14 Dec 2012 were very enlightening. Did they talk about sympathy for the victims and their families? Curious about the facts of the tragedy?
No.
They were talking about getting Bloomberg out in front of Obama and Congress, hiring a former Monsanto PR executive to be MDA, and complaining about the Brady Campaign poaching their celebrities.

Unlike people like Bloomberg Sugarman, I care about curbing all violence, regardless of weapon. Unlike people like Bloomberg and Sugarmann, I care about preventing all suicides regardless of the means.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. ...and up pops one of the aforementioned banned posters!

(For those unfamiliar, Loudly is the current screenname of the now-banned sharesunited)

Are you going to attempt to tell the admins how they should run DU again, shares?

[beevul]

33. Well lookie here...

Well lookie here. A formerly banned poster lecturing the rest of us about what "seems out of place" on a liberal board.



Just when you think you've seen everything...

[sarisataka]

34. Like these fearful people

As gun owners and strong supporters of the Second Amendment, Gabby and Mark know we must protect the rights of Americans to own guns for collection, recreation, and protection.

http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/about/
What are they afraid of?
We have been told they would not be allowed in the other gun forum...

[rrneck]

19. If you can't state your opinion somebody has to.

Or maybe you'll just post another cartoon?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. .

?w=545