Drgong
Member
sorry, was responding to post no 21.
Won't post in this thread again...
Won't post in this thread again...
We all want to protect life
- Thread starter maestro pistolero
- Start date
- Status
Gunnerpalace
Member
I beg to differ, in your previous post you stated how CCW would be able to help in a situation, my statement was that a lot of them would haul out and not help. Unless I misread something.
romma
Member
Yet some people get upset when there are negative posts with regards to law enforcement posted here.
But posting this is okay?
In a free society it isn't going to be perfect. We have the right to keep and ((BEAR)) arms Jeff. I think you take a somewhat elitist stance in this post IMO.
romma,
I am enjoying the irony here. Many of the same people who are ready to hang LE over a news report are backpedaling and attempting to justify the criminal acts of CCW holders...just as they accuse the LE members here of doing.
The world looks different from the other side, doesn't it?
Nothing elitist about pointing this out. There has been plenty of elitist attitude by CCW holders on THR over the years though. IMO too many of them think they are superior to the rest of society because they have made a choice to carry an effective means of self defense. Citizens who don't carry are derisively referred to as sheep or sheeple here all the time. There have been long threads that were eventually closed on LE disarming CCW holders in places where the law requires them to notify the police during a contact. If I had a quarter for every time I've read something to the effect of CCW holder = certified good guy here, I could afford to sit in the green seats behind home plate at the next Cardinals/Cubs series at Busch.
The fact is, there are no certified good guys, not judges, not cops, not CCW holders. There are just human beings, who have faults, bad days, lose their tempers, do criminal things....
Just like there are cops who shouldn't have a badge, gun or even access to air, there are CCW holders who are the same way. It's in no way elitist to point out that anytime you get a large number of people doing something, there is a good chance that someone will misuse their authority, commit a crime or do something incredibly stupid. No screening system can stop that.
But one thing you don't see here at THR is the members who are LE piling on in the threads about a CCW holder doing something stupid or criminal. I wonder why?
It's time we all recognize that everyone is human, cops screw up, some are criminals, and CCW holders screw up and some are criminals. May the criminals in both groups receive the justice they deserve.
Jeff
I am enjoying the irony here. Many of the same people who are ready to hang LE over a news report are backpedaling and attempting to justify the criminal acts of CCW holders...just as they accuse the LE members here of doing.
The world looks different from the other side, doesn't it?
Nothing elitist about pointing this out. There has been plenty of elitist attitude by CCW holders on THR over the years though. IMO too many of them think they are superior to the rest of society because they have made a choice to carry an effective means of self defense. Citizens who don't carry are derisively referred to as sheep or sheeple here all the time. There have been long threads that were eventually closed on LE disarming CCW holders in places where the law requires them to notify the police during a contact. If I had a quarter for every time I've read something to the effect of CCW holder = certified good guy here, I could afford to sit in the green seats behind home plate at the next Cardinals/Cubs series at Busch.
The fact is, there are no certified good guys, not judges, not cops, not CCW holders. There are just human beings, who have faults, bad days, lose their tempers, do criminal things....
Just like there are cops who shouldn't have a badge, gun or even access to air, there are CCW holders who are the same way. It's in no way elitist to point out that anytime you get a large number of people doing something, there is a good chance that someone will misuse their authority, commit a crime or do something incredibly stupid. No screening system can stop that.
But one thing you don't see here at THR is the members who are LE piling on in the threads about a CCW holder doing something stupid or criminal. I wonder why?
It's time we all recognize that everyone is human, cops screw up, some are criminals, and CCW holders screw up and some are criminals. May the criminals in both groups receive the justice they deserve.
Jeff
I can feel the frustration in your post and can empathise with you. Unfortunately, a person will never know if and when the time comes he or she can take a life. Because one carrys, it does not automatically mean that
the individual can shoot. I've seen it happen in the military and the police force. The soldier and the LEO were confronted by an adversary, they took aim but could not fire, but instead froze. In both cases, they were lucky enough to have support, who did exercise their right to use DPF. Neither the soldier or LEO were harmed, but both were removed from their assignments and rightfully so. I guess the question is, just because we can carry handguns legally, does it automatically mean that we can also take a life?
Based on the above situations that I sighted, the answer is no.
romma
Member
Jeff, I can certainly agree with you on the "we are all human" aspect, I have seen posts of gun owners not only bashing police, or pointing out their wrongdoings, but also slamming citizen gun-owners that are THR members for things like Accidental/Negligent discharges...
To me your earlier post seems to come across as though you don't think non-law enforcement should be able to carry concealed or maybe open as well..
Am I wrong about this Jeff?
To me your earlier post seems to come across as though you don't think non-law enforcement should be able to carry concealed or maybe open as well..
Am I wrong about this Jeff?
You couldn't be more wrong. If it were up to me there would be no laws about carrying firearms and no permits necessary. It's a wasteful system that does nothing to stop crime and is only a drain on resources that could be better used elsewhere.
The idea that some nut case who feels the need to carry a gun is going to be stopped because he can't be issued a permit is totally ridiculous. We need to stop wasting time and money issuing permits and spend that time and money on something that society needs.....
Jeff
MinnMooney
Member
Sorry Vermont -
Note : EVERY person who commits his/her 1st crime was a obviously a law-abiding person before that!
I liked maestro pistolero's commontary much better.
Note : EVERY person who commits his/her 1st crime was a obviously a law-abiding person before that!
I liked maestro pistolero's commontary much better.
camslam
Member
That is a very good question, to which I would answer:
1. If the situation calls for lethal action and you have a legal right to take action - Absolutely.
2. Can we automatically take a life? Just because you carry a gun doesn't make you Superman, LEO of the year, A Mall Ninja, or Cool Hand Luke. I know people that have been involved in bad situations, I have read the accounts of several others, and most of them were able to act in a manner that was legal and appropriate. It all comes down to your mindset, your preparation, and your moral code. If all those are properly aligned, I think you have a good chance of taking appropriate action.
maestro pistolero
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 111
.
The statement wasn't directed at you. I was referring to DrGong's post, not yours. Your point was well taken but by the time Drgong responded to your post, it was OT in my opinion. Even DrGongs post was Not OT to your post , but OT to to subject of the thread.
MTMilitiaman
Member
I disagree with the original premise that "we all just want to preserve life."
And I refuse to hold hands and sing while my rights are being attacked.
Someone had to take the 'us vs them' approach and I guess I am as good a candidate as anyone else. I certainly am not afraid to expose myself to the flame.
See, behind every anti is the argument that life is not worth defending.
I am sick and tired of the mentality that holds a women raped and bleeding in a deserted parking lot is more noble than a women holding a smoking .38 standing over the body of a would-be rapist. I am sick of the mentality that holds you should retreat from your own home. That you are morally obligated to surrender, to die whimpering in the shadows of another man. This mentality that violence, conflict, or war is the worst of evils. Deep within every anti is a pacifist, and I am sick of them.
They don't fear the gun for what it is, but for what it represents. A gun is power. And power is bad. Power means you can't be controlled. Power means you can't be subjugated or repressed. Power means you can't be forced to adhere to a specific belief or lifestyle, that you can't be made to sacrifice for "the good of society." Power is behind every act of resistance. Every minority voice, every spark of human spirit that refuses to fade into the night under a cloud of popular belief, or majority rule. Power to determine ones own destiny. Because of all this, indeed, freedom itself, requires conflict, strife, and uncertainty. Freedom should be sacrificed for majority rule, for safety.
My whole life I've listened to them B&M, cry and complain, attack the character of those that oppose the emotional rhetoric they parade with little or nothing to support. For as long as I can remember, they've been attacking my way of life. And I am sick of them.
Do it for the children, they say, because the death of these children is more tragic than the children we kill before birth in the name of "freedom of choice" over one's body.
I don't care if their concern is feigned or not, if their tears are faked or not, if they are sincere or do it for attention, if they are stupid or just ignorant. I don't care what they think their motives are, if they actually are quixotic and naive enough to believe that someday, we will all frolic in peace with butterflies.
I don't care. I know only that I am sick of it. That nothing on earth is more malevolent, that any life worth living is worth defending, and that arguing against our natural instinct to live and protect ourselves is morally reprehensible. To argue that violence can not be used for good, that some things are not worth fighting for, that any man has the right to subjugate me, to take from me without a fight, is to argue in favor of mental, and eventually physical enslavement, and with it, every scourge of humanity that history has shown us occurs when good men turn the other cheek, look the other way, and choose rather to ignore or appease.
As Edmund Burke put it:
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
As as I put it:
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Because when someone is pointing a gun at you, you won't care if they are doing it for the rush or to feed their family, if they've done it before, or will do it again--you will just care that they are doing it then and will wish to have the means to defend yourself. Whether or not they are a career criminal or this is their first time or whether or not the gun was obtained legally will most likely be completely irrelevant to you if not later, then at least at the time.
Even recognizing that all of us are merely mortal, capable of making mistakes, and capable of carrying out a criminal act doesn't excuse robbing us of our natural right to defend ourselves.
Because just societies don't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed or might commit. Nor do they punish the majority for the acts of a minority. Consider that among all gun owners, even with both repeat offenders and new, fresh off the edge offenders, all gun crime in this country constitutes less than 1/2 of 1% of the gun owning populace.
Because rights don't have to be justified or explained. Because you don't have to prove a need or ask permission. If you do, it is a privilege. Your right to self defense is not a privilege.
Take your pick...
And I refuse to hold hands and sing while my rights are being attacked.
Someone had to take the 'us vs them' approach and I guess I am as good a candidate as anyone else. I certainly am not afraid to expose myself to the flame.
See, behind every anti is the argument that life is not worth defending.
I am sick and tired of the mentality that holds a women raped and bleeding in a deserted parking lot is more noble than a women holding a smoking .38 standing over the body of a would-be rapist. I am sick of the mentality that holds you should retreat from your own home. That you are morally obligated to surrender, to die whimpering in the shadows of another man. This mentality that violence, conflict, or war is the worst of evils. Deep within every anti is a pacifist, and I am sick of them.
They don't fear the gun for what it is, but for what it represents. A gun is power. And power is bad. Power means you can't be controlled. Power means you can't be subjugated or repressed. Power means you can't be forced to adhere to a specific belief or lifestyle, that you can't be made to sacrifice for "the good of society." Power is behind every act of resistance. Every minority voice, every spark of human spirit that refuses to fade into the night under a cloud of popular belief, or majority rule. Power to determine ones own destiny. Because of all this, indeed, freedom itself, requires conflict, strife, and uncertainty. Freedom should be sacrificed for majority rule, for safety.
My whole life I've listened to them B&M, cry and complain, attack the character of those that oppose the emotional rhetoric they parade with little or nothing to support. For as long as I can remember, they've been attacking my way of life. And I am sick of them.
Do it for the children, they say, because the death of these children is more tragic than the children we kill before birth in the name of "freedom of choice" over one's body.
I don't care if their concern is feigned or not, if their tears are faked or not, if they are sincere or do it for attention, if they are stupid or just ignorant. I don't care what they think their motives are, if they actually are quixotic and naive enough to believe that someday, we will all frolic in peace with butterflies.
I don't care. I know only that I am sick of it. That nothing on earth is more malevolent, that any life worth living is worth defending, and that arguing against our natural instinct to live and protect ourselves is morally reprehensible. To argue that violence can not be used for good, that some things are not worth fighting for, that any man has the right to subjugate me, to take from me without a fight, is to argue in favor of mental, and eventually physical enslavement, and with it, every scourge of humanity that history has shown us occurs when good men turn the other cheek, look the other way, and choose rather to ignore or appease.
As Edmund Burke put it:
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
As as I put it:
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Because when someone is pointing a gun at you, you won't care if they are doing it for the rush or to feed their family, if they've done it before, or will do it again--you will just care that they are doing it then and will wish to have the means to defend yourself. Whether or not they are a career criminal or this is their first time or whether or not the gun was obtained legally will most likely be completely irrelevant to you if not later, then at least at the time.
Even recognizing that all of us are merely mortal, capable of making mistakes, and capable of carrying out a criminal act doesn't excuse robbing us of our natural right to defend ourselves.
Because just societies don't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed or might commit. Nor do they punish the majority for the acts of a minority. Consider that among all gun owners, even with both repeat offenders and new, fresh off the edge offenders, all gun crime in this country constitutes less than 1/2 of 1% of the gun owning populace.
Because rights don't have to be justified or explained. Because you don't have to prove a need or ask permission. If you do, it is a privilege. Your right to self defense is not a privilege.
Take your pick...
Last edited:
MTMilitiaman
Don't be shy, say what you really think!
Society has turned into politically correct wimps, from the teachers, to the parents, and most others who walk the streets as they go about their daily lives.
And it will get worse, individuality might be an asset in some parts, but on majority, it is frowned on. For instance "I could never take a life, under any circumstance" what is that all about! That statement has actually been made to me.
My own philosophy, I carry a gun in case I might need to use it, if I perceive a need I will use it, no and's if's or but's. By the same token I am not walking with fingers curled like Gesimity(Spelling?) Sam.
Police compared to an armed individual? huge difference, the Police are trained to Keep the Peace (Sir Robert Peel) in modern parlance, to detain and apprehend those individuals who are perceived breaking the law.
US? We CCW individuals? Basically to protect ourselves, for if we are not strong and well, we cannot protect any other person, our loved ones, or strangers who need the help we can give, giving that help is an individual decision.
Don't be shy, say what you really think!
Society has turned into politically correct wimps, from the teachers, to the parents, and most others who walk the streets as they go about their daily lives.
And it will get worse, individuality might be an asset in some parts, but on majority, it is frowned on. For instance "I could never take a life, under any circumstance" what is that all about! That statement has actually been made to me.
My own philosophy, I carry a gun in case I might need to use it, if I perceive a need I will use it, no and's if's or but's. By the same token I am not walking with fingers curled like Gesimity(Spelling?) Sam.
Police compared to an armed individual? huge difference, the Police are trained to Keep the Peace (Sir Robert Peel) in modern parlance, to detain and apprehend those individuals who are perceived breaking the law.
US? We CCW individuals? Basically to protect ourselves, for if we are not strong and well, we cannot protect any other person, our loved ones, or strangers who need the help we can give, giving that help is an individual decision.
Phil Lee
Member
Jeff White posted (#17 of this thread):
His claim that there are no numbers to back up safety claims for CCW holders isn't correct, although broad relative claims have not been supported by data collection efforts on a national level. Still, there are published reports that provide insights. For example for Texas William E. Sturdevant has analyzed the records in an initial report and a follow-up (BTW, the link in the follow-up report to the original report has an error and doesn't work, but my link is correct).
I do remember, but don't have the link at the moment, a published study showing that civilian shootings have fewer errors than police shootings. The explanation offered in this study was that the police shootings involve all strangers (good guys and bad) whereas civilians are frequently presented with situations where strangers are only bad guys and are easier to distinguish. However, most of these shootings (in the study) for civilians were in the home where an stranger is an intruder.
I'll also remind all of you that the reports in the FBI UCR of civilian shootings are known to undercount by a factor of two or more the civilian justified homicides. Time magazine published the article "Death by Gun" July 17, 1989 covering all homicides for one week. That article reported 199 murders (charges since trials had not yet been held) and 14 civilian legal defensive homicides (CLDHs) (6.6% of gun homicides) for the week of 1-7 May. A year later, Time followed-up their report with the article "Death by Gun: One Year Later", Time, May 14, 1990, to see how the courts had handled the cases. They reported that there were now 28 CLDHs (13.1% of gun homicides), an increase of 100% on the original report with at least 43 cases not yet adjudicated at the one-year later follow-up. My vague memory is that Kleck was an early reporter of this FBI UCR bias on CLDHs and that he estimated around 15% of homicides in the FBI UCR would be justified.
When I find the study on civilian shootings being safer than police, I'll report it here (if the mods don't close this link). But for the moment, I'm depressed by the quality of postings wherein opinions are rampant and data and real information are lacking. We really need more of data and less of opinions (and that includes postings by moderators).
That will only happen if posters become more humble about what they post. Remember "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." -- Mark Twain
His claim that there are no numbers to back up safety claims for CCW holders isn't correct, although broad relative claims have not been supported by data collection efforts on a national level. Still, there are published reports that provide insights. For example for Texas William E. Sturdevant has analyzed the records in an initial report and a follow-up (BTW, the link in the follow-up report to the original report has an error and doesn't work, but my link is correct).
I do remember, but don't have the link at the moment, a published study showing that civilian shootings have fewer errors than police shootings. The explanation offered in this study was that the police shootings involve all strangers (good guys and bad) whereas civilians are frequently presented with situations where strangers are only bad guys and are easier to distinguish. However, most of these shootings (in the study) for civilians were in the home where an stranger is an intruder.
I'll also remind all of you that the reports in the FBI UCR of civilian shootings are known to undercount by a factor of two or more the civilian justified homicides. Time magazine published the article "Death by Gun" July 17, 1989 covering all homicides for one week. That article reported 199 murders (charges since trials had not yet been held) and 14 civilian legal defensive homicides (CLDHs) (6.6% of gun homicides) for the week of 1-7 May. A year later, Time followed-up their report with the article "Death by Gun: One Year Later", Time, May 14, 1990, to see how the courts had handled the cases. They reported that there were now 28 CLDHs (13.1% of gun homicides), an increase of 100% on the original report with at least 43 cases not yet adjudicated at the one-year later follow-up. My vague memory is that Kleck was an early reporter of this FBI UCR bias on CLDHs and that he estimated around 15% of homicides in the FBI UCR would be justified.
When I find the study on civilian shootings being safer than police, I'll report it here (if the mods don't close this link). But for the moment, I'm depressed by the quality of postings wherein opinions are rampant and data and real information are lacking. We really need more of data and less of opinions (and that includes postings by moderators).
That will only happen if posters become more humble about what they post. Remember "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." -- Mark Twain
Phil,
You just made my case. There is no national data on this. No one collects it. So despite any local study you come up with there is no empirical data on shootings nationwide. It just doesn't exist. you can draw whatever conclusion you want to from the anecdotal data that you reference, but it's disingenuous to make any claim that a trend from anecdotal data is valid nationwide.
If you believe Kleck's guesswork, the vast majority of civilian defensive uses of firearms are unreported. How are you going to account for those uses of force? More guesswork?
Apples and oranges. The police have a duty to act and place themselves in situations where they must act. Civilians have no such duty. Civilians have th option to withdraw. Anyone who is trying to draw any conclusion about civilian shootings having fewer errors then police shootings has no idea what they are talking about. It's like saying railroad trains have fewer flat tires then automobiles. Few police shootings are purely defensive in nature. Most of them occur during an arrest attempt. Civilian shootings are all completely defensive in nature (or they would be crimes). Such a study may make certain people feel good about themselves, but it has no validity.
Kleck also guessed when estimated the number of civilian uses of force in self defense. He asked open ended questions when interviewing convicts and then guessed that if a certain percent of the convicts he interviewed stated they were stopped from a criminal act by someone who was armed or fear that someone was armed that percentage was valid nationwide. Kinsey used a similar technique that greatly over estimated the amount of homosexual activity in the population when he published his study on sexuality. In Kinsey's case, he took data from prison interviews and carried those percentages over to the population as a whole.
I don't understand how any researcher can draw those conclusiones based on interviews with convicts.
Sorry Phil, I stand by my assertion that no valid nationwide data exists to prove your theory. Post all the links you want, no one will close them if they conform to THR rules. Just be prepared to defend what you post.
Jeff
Phil Lee
Member
Jeff,
You obviously didn't read Sturdevant's report. Calling the data it reports anecdotal is a flat misrepresentation.
Sturdevant's report is as valid a study as you can find in statistics. Only the population is confined to Texas. You can call it local, if you like, but similar conclusions have been made using statistical analysis in Florida.
It is possible that these two states have uniquely "good" people compared to other parts of the U.S., but I rather think that is your case to make to argue this "local" data isn't representative of the nation as a whole and not mine to argue the contrary. My issue is with you claiming no numbers to back up safety claims for CCW. That is so wrong that I have to wonder why you would make such a claim.
Demeaning Kleck's work as "guesswork" is a similar misrepresentation (you should really read about his work -- perhaps this Guncite article). Unlike your claim, Kleck did a serious survey of the general population to draw his conclusions and the conclusions about DGU's don't rest on interviews with convicts as you claim.
If you read the linked Guncite article I give, you'll see Kleck's survey wasn't unique, but one of more than a dozen all reporting similar conclusions -- but numbers are different. And, if you are not happy with this short linked article, I suggest you follow one of that article's links to the Guncite reprint of "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun" Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995. That article describes Kleck's survey technique and results.
These results from Kleck aren't anecdotal evidence and aren't dependent on interviewing convicts.
Now, you claim "no numbers to back it up" for the relative safety of CCW holders and LE personnel shootings. CCW holders, for the most part, respond defensively just like civilians using firearms in their home. It isn't apples and oranges to compare their shooting safety (whether they justifiably shoot the bad guy or some innocent) to LE shooting safety. It is the question you denied the existence of data. I've seen reports on civilian shootings and civilians do better at getting the right guy shot than LE for just the reasons you state. While the report didn't specifically confine itself to CCW holders, as you point out, virtually the same conditions apply. If you, the CCW holder shoot someone for defensive reasons, you are much more likely to understand who needs to be shot than a LE person coming into a conflict where the good guys and bad guys aren't as clearly delimited.
BTW Sturdevant's report shows that Texas CCW holders do very good at being justified. Florida's CCW holders do well too.
Concerning your comment that
If it is your view that the events didn't happen because they weren't reported to authorities, then you have to discount the surveys saying a large number of DGUs did happen. How do you discount those non-Kleck surveys? How do you discount Kleck's survey -- is it only through ignorance of what Kleck really did?
Finally, you responded to my report on the Time examination of homicides during one week in 1989 with again "Kleck also guessed . . . ." Now, it happens that what Time found in that one week was consistent with what Kleck's survey found, but Time didn't survey convicts. Time looked at a small sample of homicide cases in our court system to find that the FBI UCR, which reports the police initial call on homicides, greatly underestimated the percentage of homicides that were justified. Perhaps you have a fixation with Kleck that prevents you from accepting information contrary to your world view, but Time isn't Kleck.
You obviously didn't read Sturdevant's report. Calling the data it reports anecdotal is a flat misrepresentation.
Sturdevant's report is as valid a study as you can find in statistics. Only the population is confined to Texas. You can call it local, if you like, but similar conclusions have been made using statistical analysis in Florida.
It is possible that these two states have uniquely "good" people compared to other parts of the U.S., but I rather think that is your case to make to argue this "local" data isn't representative of the nation as a whole and not mine to argue the contrary. My issue is with you claiming no numbers to back up safety claims for CCW. That is so wrong that I have to wonder why you would make such a claim.
Demeaning Kleck's work as "guesswork" is a similar misrepresentation (you should really read about his work -- perhaps this Guncite article). Unlike your claim, Kleck did a serious survey of the general population to draw his conclusions and the conclusions about DGU's don't rest on interviews with convicts as you claim.
If you read the linked Guncite article I give, you'll see Kleck's survey wasn't unique, but one of more than a dozen all reporting similar conclusions -- but numbers are different. And, if you are not happy with this short linked article, I suggest you follow one of that article's links to the Guncite reprint of "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun" Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995. That article describes Kleck's survey technique and results.
These results from Kleck aren't anecdotal evidence and aren't dependent on interviewing convicts.
Now, you claim "no numbers to back it up" for the relative safety of CCW holders and LE personnel shootings. CCW holders, for the most part, respond defensively just like civilians using firearms in their home. It isn't apples and oranges to compare their shooting safety (whether they justifiably shoot the bad guy or some innocent) to LE shooting safety. It is the question you denied the existence of data. I've seen reports on civilian shootings and civilians do better at getting the right guy shot than LE for just the reasons you state. While the report didn't specifically confine itself to CCW holders, as you point out, virtually the same conditions apply. If you, the CCW holder shoot someone for defensive reasons, you are much more likely to understand who needs to be shot than a LE person coming into a conflict where the good guys and bad guys aren't as clearly delimited.
BTW Sturdevant's report shows that Texas CCW holders do very good at being justified. Florida's CCW holders do well too.
Concerning your comment that
According to surveys (not anecdotes) most defensive gun uses are accomplished without discharging the gun (Kleck's survey suggests only between 2% and 10% of DGU's involve discharging a gun). Why would you expect the 90+% with no discharge to be reported to authorities (or for that matter the large part of the 2%:10% with no wounding)?
If it is your view that the events didn't happen because they weren't reported to authorities, then you have to discount the surveys saying a large number of DGUs did happen. How do you discount those non-Kleck surveys? How do you discount Kleck's survey -- is it only through ignorance of what Kleck really did?
Finally, you responded to my report on the Time examination of homicides during one week in 1989 with again "Kleck also guessed . . . ." Now, it happens that what Time found in that one week was consistent with what Kleck's survey found, but Time didn't survey convicts. Time looked at a small sample of homicide cases in our court system to find that the FBI UCR, which reports the police initial call on homicides, greatly underestimated the percentage of homicides that were justified. Perhaps you have a fixation with Kleck that prevents you from accepting information contrary to your world view, but Time isn't Kleck.
Last edited:
Phil,
I've read Kleck and I've read the methodology he used. He admits to drawing his conclusions by carrying his numbers over to the population at large. He admits that he got his numbers from interviews with convicts and other people. I hate to tell you this my friend, but after 22 years as a sworn officer I have concluded that people lie all the time. They lie to make themselves look good. They lie when the truth would save them time, money and arrest, all because they want to look good. Political pollsters have recognized this problem for years and it's often used to explain why election results sometimes don't match poll results, especially when the issue on the ballot is one that people consider politically correct, like a woman or candidate of another race or a ballot issue to raise taxes for some politically correct cause. People tell the pollster the politically correct answer because they don't want the pollster to think badly of them. Then they go to the polls and vote the other way.
I have no doubt that many of the people Kleck interviewed gave the "politically correct" answer, that they had run off a thief, burglar or mugger by displaying a firearm. Everyone wants to be a hero. People aren't above stroking their egos like that. It happens here at THR daily. What makes you or Kleck think that they answered his questions truthfully, especially when they had such a fine opportunity to make a complete stranger think that they were somewhat of a hero?
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. Kleck's research has no validity in my eyes and never will. It's not based on fact, it's based on what people told him about things that may or may not have happened to them.
This may shock members of the THR Texas delegation, but Texas is not the center of the universe. Any study that is based on Texas is only valid in Texas. No where else and it's utter folly to say that it transfers to all CCW nationwide. Crime and violence is a combination of complex social and economic conditions. What is good data in one part of the country isn't going to be good data in another because of that. It's often claimed here that CCW has an effect on crime. However no one who claims that has yet to answer why the crime rate in Wisconsin is lower then the crime rate in Tennessee. Both states have about the same population, yet Wisconsin enjoys the lower crime rate, despite having no CCW. The answer of course is the different demographics and culture of the populations of the two states. No one's study takes that into consideration.
Our side spews out as much meaningless propaganda as the antis do. We should be intellectually honest enough to look past it and recognize propaganda for what it is.
Jeff
I've read Kleck and I've read the methodology he used. He admits to drawing his conclusions by carrying his numbers over to the population at large. He admits that he got his numbers from interviews with convicts and other people. I hate to tell you this my friend, but after 22 years as a sworn officer I have concluded that people lie all the time. They lie to make themselves look good. They lie when the truth would save them time, money and arrest, all because they want to look good. Political pollsters have recognized this problem for years and it's often used to explain why election results sometimes don't match poll results, especially when the issue on the ballot is one that people consider politically correct, like a woman or candidate of another race or a ballot issue to raise taxes for some politically correct cause. People tell the pollster the politically correct answer because they don't want the pollster to think badly of them. Then they go to the polls and vote the other way.
I have no doubt that many of the people Kleck interviewed gave the "politically correct" answer, that they had run off a thief, burglar or mugger by displaying a firearm. Everyone wants to be a hero. People aren't above stroking their egos like that. It happens here at THR daily. What makes you or Kleck think that they answered his questions truthfully, especially when they had such a fine opportunity to make a complete stranger think that they were somewhat of a hero?
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. Kleck's research has no validity in my eyes and never will. It's not based on fact, it's based on what people told him about things that may or may not have happened to them.
This may shock members of the THR Texas delegation, but Texas is not the center of the universe. Any study that is based on Texas is only valid in Texas. No where else and it's utter folly to say that it transfers to all CCW nationwide. Crime and violence is a combination of complex social and economic conditions. What is good data in one part of the country isn't going to be good data in another because of that. It's often claimed here that CCW has an effect on crime. However no one who claims that has yet to answer why the crime rate in Wisconsin is lower then the crime rate in Tennessee. Both states have about the same population, yet Wisconsin enjoys the lower crime rate, despite having no CCW. The answer of course is the different demographics and culture of the populations of the two states. No one's study takes that into consideration.
Our side spews out as much meaningless propaganda as the antis do. We should be intellectually honest enough to look past it and recognize propaganda for what it is.
Jeff
Phil Lee
Member
Some general information on civilian legal defensive homicides (CLDHs) and woundings with guns from Gary Kleck.
From Targeting Guns, Firearms and Their Control, By Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 1997 pp. 164-65:
The rarest, but most serious form of self-defense with a gun is a defensive killing. The FBI does not publish statistics on self-defense killings per se, but it did start publishing counts of civilian justifiable homicides gathered through its Supplementary Homicide Reports program in its 1991 issue (U.S. FBI 1992:22). For a variety of reasons, the FBI counts of civilian justifiable homicides represent only a minority of all civilian legal defensive homicides (PB:112-13) [Point Blank:112-13]. FBI-counted civilian justifiable homicides were used to estimate total civilian legal defensive homicides (for procedures, se PB, ibid.). FBI/Supplementary Homicide Reports counts of police justifiable homicides are also reported here. Regardless of which counts of homicides by police are used, the results indicate that civilians legally kill far more felons than police officers do. The figures imply that, of 24,614 civilian (not by police) homicide deaths in the United States in 1990 [U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) 1994a:222], about 1400-3200, or 5.6-13.0% were legal civilian defensive homicides.
This estimate was independently confirmed by the only national study of homicides dispositions done to date. Analysis of 231 homicides occuring in the Unites States in the first week of May 1989 indicated that twenty-eight (12.1%) were ruled justifiable (Time, 14 May 1990, p. 30). The source was unclear whether thirteen killings by police (ibid.:31) had been excluded, so the number of civilian cases may have been as low as fifteen (6.5%).
. . .
Nonfatal gun woundings are far more frequent than fatal shootings. Cook (1965) reviewed data that indicate that about 15% of assault-linked gunshot wounds known to the police are fatal, implying a ratio of about 5.67 (85/15) reported nonfatal assaultive gun woundings to each fatal one. Assuming the same applies to legal civilian defensive shootings, there were between 6300 and 15,300 reported nonfatal, legally permissible woundings of criminals by gun-armed civilians in 1990. Readers should, however, keep in mind that these reported woundings are probably only a small fraction of the total number of defensive woundings of criminals. Combining the defensive killings and reported nonfatal woundings, there are about 7700-18,500 reported legal shootings of criminals a year, which would be less than 1% of all DGUs. The vast majority of DGUs, then, involve neither killings nore woundings but rather misses, warning shots fired, or guns used to threaten, by pointing them or verbally referring to them.
From Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, By Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 1991, pp 112-113:
First, some cases that even local police label as CJHs are not reported as such to the FBI. Wilbanks (1984, p. 3) reports that police in Dade County were unwilling to spend much time properly recording homicides where prosecution of the killer was not to be pursued. Second, many homicides ultimately ruled noncriminal by prosecutors or judges are reported to the FBI as criminal homicides because that is how the initial police investigation treated them. Homicides are classified, for FBI Uniform Crime Reporting purposes, solely on the basis of the initial police investigation.
Third, and most significantly, in jurisdictions that follow legal distinctions between justifiable and excusable homicides fairly closely, most CLDHs will be recorded as excusable rather than justifiable, and thus are not eligible to be counted by the FBI.
From Targeting Guns, Firearms and Their Control, By Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 1997 pp. 164-65:
The rarest, but most serious form of self-defense with a gun is a defensive killing. The FBI does not publish statistics on self-defense killings per se, but it did start publishing counts of civilian justifiable homicides gathered through its Supplementary Homicide Reports program in its 1991 issue (U.S. FBI 1992:22). For a variety of reasons, the FBI counts of civilian justifiable homicides represent only a minority of all civilian legal defensive homicides (PB:112-13) [Point Blank:112-13]. FBI-counted civilian justifiable homicides were used to estimate total civilian legal defensive homicides (for procedures, se PB, ibid.). FBI/Supplementary Homicide Reports counts of police justifiable homicides are also reported here. Regardless of which counts of homicides by police are used, the results indicate that civilians legally kill far more felons than police officers do. The figures imply that, of 24,614 civilian (not by police) homicide deaths in the United States in 1990 [U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) 1994a:222], about 1400-3200, or 5.6-13.0% were legal civilian defensive homicides.
This estimate was independently confirmed by the only national study of homicides dispositions done to date. Analysis of 231 homicides occuring in the Unites States in the first week of May 1989 indicated that twenty-eight (12.1%) were ruled justifiable (Time, 14 May 1990, p. 30). The source was unclear whether thirteen killings by police (ibid.:31) had been excluded, so the number of civilian cases may have been as low as fifteen (6.5%).
. . .
Nonfatal gun woundings are far more frequent than fatal shootings. Cook (1965) reviewed data that indicate that about 15% of assault-linked gunshot wounds known to the police are fatal, implying a ratio of about 5.67 (85/15) reported nonfatal assaultive gun woundings to each fatal one. Assuming the same applies to legal civilian defensive shootings, there were between 6300 and 15,300 reported nonfatal, legally permissible woundings of criminals by gun-armed civilians in 1990. Readers should, however, keep in mind that these reported woundings are probably only a small fraction of the total number of defensive woundings of criminals. Combining the defensive killings and reported nonfatal woundings, there are about 7700-18,500 reported legal shootings of criminals a year, which would be less than 1% of all DGUs. The vast majority of DGUs, then, involve neither killings nore woundings but rather misses, warning shots fired, or guns used to threaten, by pointing them or verbally referring to them.
From Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, By Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 1991, pp 112-113:
First, some cases that even local police label as CJHs are not reported as such to the FBI. Wilbanks (1984, p. 3) reports that police in Dade County were unwilling to spend much time properly recording homicides where prosecution of the killer was not to be pursued. Second, many homicides ultimately ruled noncriminal by prosecutors or judges are reported to the FBI as criminal homicides because that is how the initial police investigation treated them. Homicides are classified, for FBI Uniform Crime Reporting purposes, solely on the basis of the initial police investigation.
Third, and most significantly, in jurisdictions that follow legal distinctions between justifiable and excusable homicides fairly closely, most CLDHs will be recorded as excusable rather than justifiable, and thus are not eligible to be counted by the FBI.
Phil Lee
Member
I hate it when people make statements without documenting the sources like:
I hate it when people claim what is obviously not true. Kleck didn't interview people with tools that would allow people to guess what he wanted. He conducted a survey -- I suspect you don't know how surveys are different from interviews.
So, you were in law enforcement -- did you ever study science? take statistics? learn about survey methodology?
I hate it when people ignore sources independent of the point of controversy, in this case articles in Time, which confirms the controversial points and I hate it when people ignore independent sources like the other surveys demonstrating the same general conclusions as you have done (now for at least two responses).
I hate it when people say:
Frankly, my comments don't involve what the THR Texas delegation thinks -- what they think is irrelevant. That is a red Herring -- silly at best. Last I looked, Texas (and Florida) where the issue has been studied, both confirm the same conclusions. Last I looked they were both part of the U.S. Last I looked, when you say no data exists to confirm conclusions about the safety of CCW for qualified people, these two states have data to falsify your claim. Now, all you have is a claim that that data is not widespread enough for you. And, you disregard national surveys by 15 different sources (Kleck + 14 others), disregard a report by Time which was national in scope (although compressed in time) .
I also hate it when people say that a particular researcher's work has no validity in their eyes but they have not given any documentation of why the rest of us should believe that claim.
This behavior makes me think you don't really understand the science involved.
That's a pity.
How about you linking to a reference showing what you say is right?
I hate it when people claim what is obviously not true. Kleck didn't interview people with tools that would allow people to guess what he wanted. He conducted a survey -- I suspect you don't know how surveys are different from interviews.
So, you were in law enforcement -- did you ever study science? take statistics? learn about survey methodology?
I hate it when people ignore sources independent of the point of controversy, in this case articles in Time, which confirms the controversial points and I hate it when people ignore independent sources like the other surveys demonstrating the same general conclusions as you have done (now for at least two responses).
I hate it when people say:
Frankly, my comments don't involve what the THR Texas delegation thinks -- what they think is irrelevant. That is a red Herring -- silly at best. Last I looked, Texas (and Florida) where the issue has been studied, both confirm the same conclusions. Last I looked they were both part of the U.S. Last I looked, when you say no data exists to confirm conclusions about the safety of CCW for qualified people, these two states have data to falsify your claim. Now, all you have is a claim that that data is not widespread enough for you. And, you disregard national surveys by 15 different sources (Kleck + 14 others), disregard a report by Time which was national in scope (although compressed in time) .
I also hate it when people say that a particular researcher's work has no validity in their eyes but they have not given any documentation of why the rest of us should believe that claim.
This behavior makes me think you don't really understand the science involved.
That's a pity.
Ask and you shall receive: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,152446,00.html?iid=chix-sphere
You can rely on data that Kleck admits:
I don't buy that as a defensive gun use and neither should you. Kleck admits that he's counting things that go bump in the night as a defensive gun use. I wonder how many stray cats in urban areas or raccoons and opossums in rural areas were scared off by Kleck's survey participants?
If you want to believe that a survey of 1,228 US voters projected over 5 years is representative of how many defensive gun uses happened in the US over a 5 year period, then I've got some ocean front property here in Southern Illinois for sale that I think you might be interested in.
Gee, even Hart Research, who did the survey feels the way that I do. Imagine that....
I don't think I'd speculate on what someone you don't know, does or doesn't know Phil. Kleck did use interviews:
http://www.rense.com/general76/univ.htm
And a telephone survey where the respondent is likely to lie to impress the person taking the survey:
Then there is this:
http://www.safestatekansas.org/Harvard Research Sows Danger.htm
Yes I did take science.
Good then you will accept the article from Time that I referenced above as an independent source.
There is data for two states, two out of 48 that permit some form of concealed carry. You are as bad as Kleck...lets just extend that data out to cover the whole country you say. I say you can't. Because culture is somewhat different in the states and culture has much more to do with violent crime rates and defensive gun use then CCW does. You conveniently ignore this, because it doesn't fit into your preconceived notion of how things are.
Here is data published in a Southern Illinois University Law School Review article on concealed carry:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Kim1.htm
Why is this relevant to our discussion about CCW? It's relevant because it proves my point about gun use, both criminal and defensive being cultural. If it wasn't the rates of the various crimes should have all fallen or risen about the same after CCW was passed. But they didn't. People from different cultures (and like it or not there are many different cultures in the US) view the use of force differently. That is why you can't accept data from two states as being representative of all of them.
I can fill 10 posts with documentation that refutes Klecks claims, but why waste the bandwidth?
Phil, I think that you are not looking at the data realistically. Kleck supports your worldview, so it must be true. It's proof positive that you are right. I think it's sad that you can't look past your personal biases and recognize it for what it is, propaganda based on poor research.
http://cache.search.yahoo.net/searc...w=dr+gary+kleck&d=APoO3hg5RJDv&icp=1&.intl=us
Maybe you'd care to explain to me why Kleck is right and Hemenway is wrong, besides the fact Hemenway is on the wrong side of the issue?
The fact is, there is considerable disagreement among criminologists and statisticians about the legitimacy of Kleck's numbers. From a 1994 Tennessee Law Review Article:
http://www.foac-pac.org/laws/Kates6.html
You see Phil, I believe the truth is somewhere in there, but neither side has published it yet.
Jeff
Phil Lee
Member
Jeff quotes from the Time magazine article linked here:
No -- Time is wrong. Kleck states his survey was conducted in 1993 as you can find from "Armed Resistance to Crime" article I linked for you earlier in my post #41 (I give you another link here in case you can't bring yourself to read the pro-gun Gunsite source).
It is true that Kleck cites the earlier 1981 Hart survey and more than a dozen more including one by Mauser in 1990. But he did his own survey (and you should read what he did). In fact, if you read "Armed Resistance to Crime" you might find the statement "Interviewing was carried out from February through April of 1993."
That isn't Time's only error in your linked article. If you had bothered to check, Kleck's 1993 survey included follow-up interviews with those reporting defensive gun uses to determine things such as what crime was believed to be committed (or about to be committed) when the defensive gun use (DFU) was made. That information is carried in Table 3 of the article
"Armed Resistance to Crime". In that table you'll see that violent crimes such as robbery, rape and other assault comprised about 60% of the crimes believe thwarted by the DGUs reported.
Actually, there are too many errors and lies in the Time article you've cited for me to correct. Obviously, you've drunk some of the gun-prohibitionist's cool aide contained in the quotes from their illuminaries: William Eastman, president of the California Chiefs of Police Association (isn't the Chiefs of Police Association supported by Soros?) and Dr. Arthur (43 to 1 or is it 22 to 1 or 3 to 1) Kellermann.
When you say "I can fill 10 posts with documentation that refutes Klecks claims, but why waste the bandwidth?", I have to respond that so far you've done a very poor job of responding:
1) You've claimed Kleck got his results from interviewing convicts -- that's wrong.
2) You've claimed (quoting Time) that Kleck's results was based on a 1981 Hart poll -- that's wrong -- Kleck did his own survey in 1993.
3) You've claimed that the survey allowed reporting cases of things that go bump in the night, but that's wrong too -- there was a follow-up to insure real events concerning real crimes were being reported.
4) You've claimed to have read and understood the reports by Kleck, yet you've make errors in statements that no fair reading of these materials would suggest.
All of that is bad enough, but now you are claiming
In a scientific arena, such a claim should be accompanied with an offer of proof. My scientific credentials are significant including a PhD in Mathematics (1970) from Georgia Institute of Technology. If you like, I'll provide you with my resume from which you might be able to determine that I've used statistics for more than 30 years in various research and applied engineering tasks for submarine detection to ballistic missile defense.
In the scientific work that I've done, I've learned at least to read and understand what claims others make and I've learned to compare what other researchers have to say on topics. So, the proof I offer that you are wrong about Kleck and about me includes the following:
1. The Department of Justice Study done by Cook and Ludwig in 1997 under the Clinton Administration found similar values to Kleck and Gertz. In fact in the study said (page 9):
2. After the Kleck and Gertz findings were published, late criminologist and avowed gun control advocate Marvin Wolfgang commented:
As for quoting Dr. David Hemenway, I think you should have also pulled in quotes from Tim Lambert too. Really, I'm left aghast. You are obviously unqualified to analyze scientific papers (prove me wrong by citing training and experience) and you have seriously misrepresented the work by Kleck and its quality. It appears to me that you think that controversy means that truth isn't known. In science there is a way to determine truth and it doesn't include misstating results and avoiding documentation.
Galileo knew the truth no matter how controversial Pope Urban VIII made his conclusions. You too have entered the realm of religion when you adhere to your beliefs in the face of evidence.
Now, we all know.
No -- Time is wrong. Kleck states his survey was conducted in 1993 as you can find from "Armed Resistance to Crime" article I linked for you earlier in my post #41 (I give you another link here in case you can't bring yourself to read the pro-gun Gunsite source).
It is true that Kleck cites the earlier 1981 Hart survey and more than a dozen more including one by Mauser in 1990. But he did his own survey (and you should read what he did). In fact, if you read "Armed Resistance to Crime" you might find the statement "Interviewing was carried out from February through April of 1993."
That isn't Time's only error in your linked article. If you had bothered to check, Kleck's 1993 survey included follow-up interviews with those reporting defensive gun uses to determine things such as what crime was believed to be committed (or about to be committed) when the defensive gun use (DFU) was made. That information is carried in Table 3 of the article
"Armed Resistance to Crime". In that table you'll see that violent crimes such as robbery, rape and other assault comprised about 60% of the crimes believe thwarted by the DGUs reported.
Actually, there are too many errors and lies in the Time article you've cited for me to correct. Obviously, you've drunk some of the gun-prohibitionist's cool aide contained in the quotes from their illuminaries: William Eastman, president of the California Chiefs of Police Association (isn't the Chiefs of Police Association supported by Soros?) and Dr. Arthur (43 to 1 or is it 22 to 1 or 3 to 1) Kellermann.
When you say "I can fill 10 posts with documentation that refutes Klecks claims, but why waste the bandwidth?", I have to respond that so far you've done a very poor job of responding:
1) You've claimed Kleck got his results from interviewing convicts -- that's wrong.
2) You've claimed (quoting Time) that Kleck's results was based on a 1981 Hart poll -- that's wrong -- Kleck did his own survey in 1993.
3) You've claimed that the survey allowed reporting cases of things that go bump in the night, but that's wrong too -- there was a follow-up to insure real events concerning real crimes were being reported.
4) You've claimed to have read and understood the reports by Kleck, yet you've make errors in statements that no fair reading of these materials would suggest.
All of that is bad enough, but now you are claiming
In a scientific arena, such a claim should be accompanied with an offer of proof. My scientific credentials are significant including a PhD in Mathematics (1970) from Georgia Institute of Technology. If you like, I'll provide you with my resume from which you might be able to determine that I've used statistics for more than 30 years in various research and applied engineering tasks for submarine detection to ballistic missile defense.
In the scientific work that I've done, I've learned at least to read and understand what claims others make and I've learned to compare what other researchers have to say on topics. So, the proof I offer that you are wrong about Kleck and about me includes the following:
1. The Department of Justice Study done by Cook and Ludwig in 1997 under the Clinton Administration found similar values to Kleck and Gertz. In fact in the study said (page 9):
For the reading challenged, this statement is an independent confirmation of Kleck's survey results. If you don't know, you should, that Cook and Ludwig are two of the more honest researchers of the group that favor gun control.
2. After the Kleck and Gertz findings were published, late criminologist and avowed gun control advocate Marvin Wolfgang commented:
-- reference: Marvin E. Wolfgang, "A Tribute To A View I Have Opposed," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology; 86(1): 188-192 (Fall 1995).
As for quoting Dr. David Hemenway, I think you should have also pulled in quotes from Tim Lambert too. Really, I'm left aghast. You are obviously unqualified to analyze scientific papers (prove me wrong by citing training and experience) and you have seriously misrepresented the work by Kleck and its quality. It appears to me that you think that controversy means that truth isn't known. In science there is a way to determine truth and it doesn't include misstating results and avoiding documentation.
Galileo knew the truth no matter how controversial Pope Urban VIII made his conclusions. You too have entered the realm of religion when you adhere to your beliefs in the face of evidence.
Now, we all know.
Last edited:
No Time is right. It is a credible source, you stated in your last post that Time was an unbiased source.
How many years experience do you have dealing with violence? How many crime scenes have you been to? How many victims and suspects have you personally interviewed? How many felony convictions have you won in court? How many cases have you testified in? In other words, what does a PhD in mathematics know about crime, violence and human nature? Let's see those credentials...then and only then will you have the knowledge and experience to draw conclusions about Kleck's research.
Kleck has proven nothing. When he can cite names and facts he's proven something. Drawing conclusions based on interviews and surveys and carrying them out over a 5 year period isn't science. It's guesswork.
In my world we deal with facts. Something you seem unable to accept. Anonymous surveys and interviews prove nothing. Facts, who, what when and where, when Kleck can come up with details to prove these numbers I'll believe them.. But the numbers he comes up with now fly in the face of a lot of experience actually dealing with those things. I didn't take anonymous surveys and make blind phone calls to get my take on violence and defensive gun use. I took reports that have names, dates and details of the incidents.
You haven't even addressed Kleck's own statements about the telephone surveys. I suppose he lied about that?
Kleck's numbers fly in the face of what police officers see nationwide. There simply isn't that much violence. Kleck by his own admission counted incidents where the respondent didn't even see the assailant. I'm sorry that's just not a verifiable defensive gun use. Yelling out, "I have a gun!" at a bump in the night isn't verification of anything except some respondent was scared of the dark. We used to have a poor old woman who was starting to suffer from dementia, she would call us all the time about a burglar under her porch. (the porch was about 6 inches off the ground) We would make a big show of bright lights and shouts for him to come out. She would be satisfied and go to sleep then and it might be several days before she called back. By Kleck's standard, if we had drawn our weapons, that would have counted as a DGU.
Now do you understand why I think his numbers are ridiculous?
Nor have you addressed my statement that violence and it's perception and defensive gun use differs culturally and that's why data from two states is not valid nationwide.
It seems you are only comfortable arguing about Kleck's numbers but you have nothing to back up any other assertions you made. Or are those arguments beyond mathematics which is your field?
Crime and violence is much more complex then numbers. And numbers based on anonymous surveys and anonymous telephone interviews are worthless. How does he account for the fact that people lie and exaggerate?
Crime is also cyclical. One of the big factors in how much crime there is, and subsequently how many DGUs is the number of males aged 14-28 in the population. You just can't take survey data for one year and carry it over a five year period and come up with a number. I know that mathematics is a bit more precise then that.
You are way out of your league and experience here. This is sociology, not mathematics. In you field, the number 3 is always the number 3. There are few absolutes in sociology. And you are treating Kleck's propaganda like it is absolute....Absolute truth with no details, no stated facts, and people who work with it are supposed to believe it. Sorry Phil, I was born at night, but not last night.
Why doesn't the world recognize Kleck's results then? Why is there any controversy? Is it because they can't be proven to be true and one side asserts they are true because they support their personal opinion and one side says they aren't because they don't support their personal opinion?
Funny how you fight so vehemently for Kleck because his results support your personal world view. And since Hemenway doesn't support your personal world view his results are trash.
Kleck's results support my personal worldview, but I don't believe them because they don't match my personal experience dealing with these issues. You see, if there were as many DGUs as Kleck claims the police would be a lot busier then they are, even if it was chasing ghosts of shots fired complaints.
You, my friend have entered the realm of religion. I see the truth very well and that's that there is no way Kleck is right or my life would have been a lot busier then it was. I'm sorry, when someone's numbers fly in the face of my personal experience, even when those numbers support a political position I espouse, I am intellectually honest enough to question them.
You my friend have no personal experience that you admit to dealing with real crime, violence or defensive gun use, and you believe his numbers as if they were carved in stone. You'll have some credibility with me when you can document some street experience and tell me that you handled enough complaints that made Kleck's numbers seem credible.
People lie. They lie to the police, they lie to their families, they lie to researchers. Accept that fact. Once you do, you won't believe Kleck's numbers either.
Jeff
And we are having criminal illegal immigrants added to the mix, if person A/ was not here, crime B/ would not have been committed, period.
Figures lie, and liars figure? You two gentlemen pose very good debates, done in very good taste, and without to much heat.
The bottom line in the difference in crime and concealed carry (by none Police) is this... I as an individual have a CCW here in Florida, I am mechanically proficient with my Glock 19, been in altercations in my life span of 72 years, and survived 4 years of bombing in Liverpool UK. I/Me, feel much more comfortable with a loaded pistol on the belt, than without.
I do not need any statistics to cause me to not carry one, or even to carry one, it is pure common sense, the increase of criminal activity does not enter in to the equation, if 4 crimes, street robberies, happen today in Orlando, a minor number, a minor percentage, if you are one of these 4? it is a major, earth shattering experience. My Glock 19 is an inanimate object just along for the ride, if it is required right now! it's there, if not it still is there.
And the person in one of the wordy previous posts who was quoted as saying "I hate guns!" is a fool! "I hate cans of Tomatoes" or "I hate cars" same thing, what an idiot.
Phil Lee
Member
I never said Time was an unbiased source. You "misrepresent" what I said -- I only said they were "independent". Time has a well known bias against the right to keep and bear arms. It is that bias that makes the articles I cited about homicides so valuable. These articles present data contrary to the usual assertions by Time and confirm what Kleck has said.
You'd understand the significance of these facts if you actually read any of the things you claim to have read.
I started this interchange with to respond to (what appeared to me to be your uninformed) criticisms of Kleck's survey work and conclusions. You keep focusing on Kleck, but the reality is that you reject the conclusions of all the surveys. So, we end with a general assertion by you that these surveys are flawed because they conflict with superior wisdom obtained from your on the job anecdotal experience as police officer.
Early in this interchange you criticized as anecdotal the statistical study in Texas by Sturdevant. It wasn't anecdotal. Now you praise your own anecdotal experience as a police officer and claim no one not having similar experiences can know truth. What a turn around!
Thank you for the lecture about mathematics -- I so love the notion that the number 3 is alway 3 -- how did I miss that bit of wisdom?
So many misrepresentations by you ("since Hemenway doesn't support your personal world view his results are trash," Kleck obtain his DGU results by interviewing convicts, . . .). Except for the fact that your factless BS comments about Kleck might have been accepted by others, I wouldn't have bothered. Now you misrepresent my views on Hemenway and his work. Hemenway is financially supported by Soros and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center which Hemenway directs is also funded by the Joyce Foundation.
Both Soros and Joyce are well known funders of the gun-prohibitionists. Don't you know that? Or do you intentionally want to promote the gun-prohibitionists agenda?
Hemenway refuses to share the data that he uses for his "studies" contrary to accepted scientific practice. Since you claim to have taken science, you should understand how questionable assertions are by a scientist who refuses to share data. Do you?
I've documented what I wanted to do. I think there is now sufficient on the record factual evidence for people to know what is necessary about the truth of what I say . . . and the truth of what you say.
You'd understand the significance of these facts if you actually read any of the things you claim to have read.
I started this interchange with to respond to (what appeared to me to be your uninformed) criticisms of Kleck's survey work and conclusions. You keep focusing on Kleck, but the reality is that you reject the conclusions of all the surveys. So, we end with a general assertion by you that these surveys are flawed because they conflict with superior wisdom obtained from your on the job anecdotal experience as police officer.
Early in this interchange you criticized as anecdotal the statistical study in Texas by Sturdevant. It wasn't anecdotal. Now you praise your own anecdotal experience as a police officer and claim no one not having similar experiences can know truth. What a turn around!
Thank you for the lecture about mathematics -- I so love the notion that the number 3 is alway 3 -- how did I miss that bit of wisdom?
So many misrepresentations by you ("since Hemenway doesn't support your personal world view his results are trash," Kleck obtain his DGU results by interviewing convicts, . . .). Except for the fact that your factless BS comments about Kleck might have been accepted by others, I wouldn't have bothered. Now you misrepresent my views on Hemenway and his work. Hemenway is financially supported by Soros and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center which Hemenway directs is also funded by the Joyce Foundation.
Both Soros and Joyce are well known funders of the gun-prohibitionists. Don't you know that? Or do you intentionally want to promote the gun-prohibitionists agenda?
Hemenway refuses to share the data that he uses for his "studies" contrary to accepted scientific practice. Since you claim to have taken science, you should understand how questionable assertions are by a scientist who refuses to share data. Do you?
I've documented what I wanted to do. I think there is now sufficient on the record factual evidence for people to know what is necessary about the truth of what I say . . . and the truth of what you say.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
