The only way to stop a . . .

[bobabode]

Sounds like you're for better background checks and closing the gun show loophole and similar loopholes that allow criminals and deranged people to get their hands on firearms, JB.

ps Got any links to those two citations you've offered. I would like to read more.

[bobabode]

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm

Here's the Kleck and Gertz study if anyone wants to read it. Published in 1995.

http://www.nsc.org/pages/home.aspx

I couldn't find that exact phrase on the National Safety Council website. Could be a limitation of their search function.

It does get repeated extensively by lobbyists like this one https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by JBS...

"Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day."

Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law[/I]

"Each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives."

According to the National Safety Council

You've been hoodwinked. I'm a proud gun owner. I'm not a delusional gun owner though.

A favorite study of these advocates is 1995’s “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun” (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall/95), by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, which found that guns were used defensively about 2.5 million times annually in the U.S.—or almost 7,000 times a day.

Researcher John Lott conducted another study favored by gun advocates, published in his 1998 book More Guns, Less Crime, which claimed that increasing numbers of concealed carry permits in a given area are associated with decreasing crime rates.

Both studies have been convincingly challenged in the scientific community. In a 2004 meta-study of gun research, the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science found that Lott’s claims were not supported by his data. And when Lott misrepresented the report (New York Post, 12/29/04), the NAS published a letter (Deltoid, 1/26/05) listing his distor-tions. Shooting Down the More Guns Less Crime Hypothesis (11/02), a paper pub-lished by the National Bureau of Economic Research, found crime actually increased in states and locales where concealed carry laws had been adopted.

The Harvard School of Public Health’s David Hemenway took on Kleck in Survey Research and Self Defense Gun Use: An Explanation of Extreme Overestimates (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1997), demonstrating that because of the nature of the data, Kleck’s self-reported phone survey finding 2.5 million defensive uses of guns per year was wildly exaggerated. For example, Kleck says guns were used to defend against 845,000 burglaries in 1992, a year in which the National Crime Victimization Survey says there were fewer than 6 million burglaries....

The FBI’s Crime in the United States report for 1998 found that for every instance that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 50 people lost their lives in handgun homicides.

http://fair.org/home/the-self-defense-self-delusion/

[bobabode]

"With a gun murder rate about 20 times the average of other industrialized countries (Washington Post, 12/14/12), it’s hard to argue with Hemenway’s conclusion (Harvard Injury Control Research Center, “Homicide”): “Where there are more guns, there is more homicide.”
A New England Journal of Medicine study (10/7/93) in 1993 concluded that a gun in the home raised the chances someone in a family will be killed by nearly three times, with the danger to women—who are more likely to be killed by a spouse, intimate or relative—even greater. A 1997 study in the Archives of Internal Medicine (4/14/97) reinforces that danger, finding that the homicide risk for women increased 3.4 times in a home with one or more guns. Taken together with the heightened risk of suicide and accidental deaths posed by guns in the home, these numbers demolish the argument that guns enhance family protection.
Much of the research on guns and public health dates back to the 1990s, it should be noted, because of the near total ban that Congress imposed on public funding for studies of guns and public health in 1996, singling out the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). “Scientific inquiry in this field has been systematically starved, and as a result almost no one does it,” University of California–Davis professor Garen Winte-mute told Huffington Post (1/10/13). The ban was driven by the NRA, whose anti-inquiry view is shared by gun researcher Lott; when conservative talkshow host Mark Levin (WABC, 1/16/13) asked Lott whether he wanted “the Centers for Disease Control to be delving into studying the gun issue,” Lott responded, “No, no, I don’t.”

Thanks for the link, Pat.

[MikeG22]

I like how it's always the women is more likely to be kill by the firearm. I think my wife would be way more likely to mow me down.

You can run all the facts you want but it is all about with ownership comes great responsibility and if your not willing to take proper measures, do not own one. If you choose to own one and not take those measures tragedy is a strong possibility.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by MikeG22

I like how it's always the women is more likely to be kill by the firearm. I think my wife would be way more likely to mow me down.

You can run all the facts you want but it is all about with ownership comes great responsibility and if your not willing to take proper measures, do not own one. If you choose to own one and not take those measures tragedy is a strong possibility.

Unfortunately, the victims of such tragedies are often not the gun owner himself.

[MikeG22]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Unfortunately, the victims of such tragedies are often not the gun owner himself.

I agree, but many times it is the owner. There are plenty of accidental deaths because someone does not follow a simple golden rule like, treat the gun like it is loaded and hot at all times. If you can't follow rules like that don't own one cause your destined to become a statistic.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by MikeG22

I agree, but many times it is the owner. There are plenty of accidental deaths because someone does not follow a simple golden rule like, treat the gun like it is loaded and hot at all times. If you can't follow rules like that don't own one cause your destined to become a statistic.

OK, but I have considerably less sympathy for a careless gun owner who accidentally shoots himself than a careless gun owner who accidentally shoots someone else.

[MikeG22]

Originally Posted by finnbow

OK, but I have considerably less sympathy for a careless gun owner who accidentally shoots himself than a careless gun owner who accidentally shoots someone else.

Oh absolutely.

[merrylander]

This should be interesting reading

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...f44_story.html