Kleck actually making some sense on lenient gun laws

[Starboard Tack]

Criminologist Gary Kleck at Florida State University, who has studied firearms and deterrence, disputes the theory that more lenient self-defence laws deter crime.

"The notion that criminals are sensitive to that kind of change in law is far fetched," he says.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17438627

[ellisonz]

1. Time to throw Gary Kleck under the bus...

[Hoyt]

4. Good shot.

[eqfan592]

9. Ummm, why?

Is he saying something here that pro-2a advocates haven't already said here on this forum before?

[X_Digger]

2. Had anyone here claimed this, then you'd have a great comeback.

Since the only time I recall this kind of statement is from a pro-control person, sarcastically or as a straw man, I guess you've shown *them*.

[Starboard Tack]

12. You're joking right

I've seen several people here claim that more guns means criminals don't know how is armed or not. Probably, most have been rooted out as the trolls they were, but I'm sure a few are still sneaking around, or trying to crawl under the door.

So, now you've all admitted that looser gun laws are no deterrent to crime, what's your excuse? Is it just fear of "thugs" and "bogeymen"?

[X_Digger]

16. When have I ever used that as a justification?!? Stop trying to put your fingers in my mouth, eh?

I carry for the unlikely possibility that I may have to defend myself. Just as I carry a fire extinguisher and first aid kit in my truck.



You've got that straw man thing down pat. Time to move on to the next logical fallacy.

[Starboard Tack]

21. Ah, yes, the unlikely possibility that you may have to defend yourself.

Defend yourself from what? A "thug" or "bogeyman" maybe? It's your straw man, not mine. I'm just trying to make some sense out of your reasoning.
You need to get one thing clear, though. I know it's been drummed into your brain many times that a "gun" is some kind of "safety equipment". Well, it isn't. You have bought into a lie. A gun is the exact opposite of "safety equipment". There exists no tool on this planet which has caused more death and injury than a gun and calling it "safety equipment" is beyond laughable. Guns are tools for hunting, killing tools and for some they are sporting tools. They are never "safety equipment".
Let men know when that bit of basic information sinks in and we'll move on to your next logical fallacy. Then we can deal with the real reason you and those like you carry these things around with you, because we'd really, really like to know.

[X_Digger]

22. Defending myself from violent attack.

I take it back, you don't seem to understand what a straw man argument actually is. *sigh* And here I had high hopes for you.

Here, this should help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[div class='excerpt']They are never "safety equipment".

Lol, tell it to the police.

Tell it to these people..

[div class='excerpt']http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/16/ap/national/main7157952.shtml
[div class='excerpt']As they were trying to tie up the store owner, he took out a handgun from his waistband and fatally shot one of the suspects, Smith said.

http://charlotte.news14.com/content/top_stories/628167/man-at-atm-fires-back-at-would-be-armed-robber
[div class='excerpt']According to police, the man was attempting to use a Cash Points ATM on Eastway Drive at North Tryon Street around 11 p.m. A suspect seemingly saw that as an opportunity and tried to rob the victim at gunpoint.

However, that victim was also armed. He shot the suspect twice in the leg.

http://www.wxix.com/Global/story.asp?S=12299813
[div class='excerpt']CINCINNATI, OH (FOX19) - Cincinnati Police are investigating a shooting where it appears a robber left the scene with the victim's cell-phone in his hand, and a slug from the victim's gun in his lower abdomen.

Police say the robber ran into someone with a concealed-carry permit, and at some point the would-be victim was able to get his gun out and shoot the suspect, who took off running from the shooting scene on Rosemont Avenue south of Glenway in West Price Hill.


No, your moral whip is past it's sell-by date.

[Starboard Tack]

27. Thanks for proving my point once again

Do you also put fires out with gasoline?

[X_Digger]

29. Do you deny that those people saved themselves with guns?

It's a simple question, really.

[Starboard Tack]

33. Not at all

They saved themselves by taking others lives. Individuals saving themselves is highly beneficial to those individuals. The cost to a society that is trying to progress is astronomical.

[X_Digger]

35. So it was a safety device to them, correct? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

42. It was a killing tool for society

They just put another brick in the wall as you do every time you don't leave home without it. Gun freaks who can't leave their guns at home contribute daily to the ongoing demise of American society. But your not alone, if that gives you comfort.

[X_Digger]

45. Can't admit that the device they used to save themselves was a safety device?

I think that's cognitive dissonance.

Most defensive uses of guns don't involve them actually being fired, much less killing someone.

Does that mean the guns are defective?

You crack me up, with the contortions you make trying to miss the point.

[Starboard Tack]

46. Amazing. I think the same about you.

You call a gun, a fucking gun, a defensive tool. What bullshit! A gun, like any other object may be used as a defensive tool, but to market it as such and accept it as such is dishonest. A handgun is as much a defensive tool as a passenger aircraft is a weapon of war. It takes a perverted mind to describe either as such. That mind is what is defective. You can fool yourself and your pistol packing buddies that carrying your handgun around is a defensive act, but you're not fooling the rest of us.
It truly amazes me that anyone could admit to such behavior.

[X_Digger]

47. Your moral whip is past it's sell-by date.

[Starboard Tack]

49. Is that all you've got?

Firing the same old blanks

[X_Digger]

50. You really want to re-hash the same conversation we've had ten times?

Your cognitive dissonance doesn't allow you to see handguns as anything but scawwy death spewers.

I recognize this limitation of yours.

[Starboard Tack]

53. I have never said that about handguns and you know it.

My issue is not with the guns, but with those who insist on carrying them in the guise of self-defense. Not complicated. No need to cast aspersions about morality or fear of guns. It isn't about fear for me. It's about fooling oneself that encouraging others to carry guns is in the interests of a better and safer society. I completely understand an individual carrying a gun, as a last resort, if he/she has received threats, has a high risk occupation or lives in a war zone. But, passing it off as normal behavior and justifying it, in the event of a highly unlikely need, is pure hogwash.
So, I'll be happy to engage on that issue. My argument is not coming from a moral stance, but a pragmatic one.
I believe that a healthy society is one where people don't walk around with guns, either shooting each other or being prepared to shoot each other. This is not how we progress. It is bad for the economy, for our children and for our standing in the world community. Current loosening of gun laws is like drilling for more oil - myopic. This is the kind of shit Democrats need to stand up against. Bandaid solutions.

[X_Digger]

54. If you were being pragmatic..

You'd look at the relaxation of concealed carry laws, their uptake by more and more citizens, coupled with the continued decrease in crime (including crime with guns)- and say, "Doesn't appear to be hurting anything. So be it."

I don't think you know what pragmatic actually means. No, you're on the other end of that spectrum.

You are making moral, psychological, and emotional pleas- quite the opposite of pragmatic.

[Starboard Tack]

58. See you can't help but divert to personal attacks.

I do know what pragmatic means and I know what myopic means. There is zero evidence to suggest that the decrease in crime has any connection to relaxed gun laws.
I am making no pleas of any kind. Just making observations and pointing out stupidity when and where I see it.
When I do something stupid, which I do from time to time, I'm grateful when others point it out. I don't try to justify it. That's how we grow. That's how we progress.

[X_Digger]

59. "pointing out stupidity" -- is just what I did.

The fact that you took it as a personal attack is an indication that you're not interested in taking your own medicine.

[Simo 1939_1940]

97. "They saved themselves by taking other lives."

False.

The vast majority of defensive gun uses do not even involve firing a weapon, much less killing the assailant.

[Simo 1939_1940]

3. Kleck has made a lot of sense for a very long time. This isn't news. NT

[Starboard Tack]

13. Well it's news to me.

Good to know even a fool can be right about one thing.

[Simo 1939_1940]

36. And of course you can't intelligently explain *why* he's a fool......

.......it's enough for you to just throw slime.

[gejohnston]

5. he has said this several times

but the complete context is that there is no evidence of gun laws (making them more strict or lenient) affects crime rates. If you ever actually read his work you know, real objective science not funded by any advocacy groups and is honest when the results contradict his politics and hypothesis, you would already know this.
Your side are the ones claiming gun laws affect crime, not us.

[Starboard Tack]

11. I don't care about gun laws affecting crime rates.

Putting more guns on the street to deter purse snatching is like burning down your house to deter mice.
All I care about are the tens of thousands of handgun deaths and injuries and the hundreds of billions of dollars it costs the taxpayers.
Property crime rates are a symptom of the economy and I do not support protecting material property with a gun.

[gejohnston]

24. he was talking about violent crime

specifically murder. Read his stuff or do you prefer propagandists over scientists?

[Starboard Tack]

25. I've read enough of it thanks.

I know that I disagree with the premise that arming the citizenry is in the interest of public safety. Using guns to protect property is anathema to me.

[gejohnston]

32. about property, I agree to a point

I'm not going to shoot someone over the TV. However, car jacking is something totally different especially if you are working class and in a suburban or semi-rural area. Why? Have to think about the domino effect.
Probably only can afford liability insurance, which means can't replace it quickly
which means:
no transportation to work or buy food (no mass transit)
which means:
lose job
which means:
family's health and safety is impacted as soon as the Sheriff shows up with eviction
Plus even if you just give up the car, there is no guaranteeing the jacker won't kill you just for the hell of it.

In that case, my family's well being is far more important to me than the safety or life of the sociopath putting a weapon in my face.

[Starboard Tack]

43. Bit of a stretch

Really, if you can only afford liability insurance, I doubt your vehicle is worth stealing and if it is, I would suggest selling one of your guns to pay for insurance. It's all about priorities. Do I want car insurance or should I be prepared to kill someone today. Jeez. What's this world coming to?

[gejohnston]

52. car jacking is not about theft

for parts. Doesn't matter if the defender uses a gun or not. Sorry, that is not a stretch. That is the real world.
You mentioned the unwritten rules in the UK. That reminded me of Wyoming conservation officers until the past twenty years. When I was a kid, game wardens did not wear pistols. Yes they are in the wilderness alone, and everyone they stop was most likely armed with at least a rifle or shotgun. (If I were to follow the family tradition, I would have joined them.) Only one was shot in the line of duty, that was in 1913.
That changed.
Teabagging-gun toting-Glen Beck listening-reactionaries killing deer for fun and profit?
Nope.
That changed because of greedy sociopaths and their fucking meth labs supplying the fucking drug culture.

[Starboard Tack]

55. Hey, I'm a big fan of the Joe Pickett series by CJ Box

Game wardens should definitely be armed, if only against animal attacks. The meth thing is a consequence of a failed drug policy. The term "drug culture" is too broad brushed. There is no such thing, unless you want to include the whole planet. Your average pot smoker couldn't be further apart than your average tweaker.

[gejohnston]

57. I did not say they were unarmed

just did not wear pistols or revolvers. As in it stayed in the truck when they stopped you.

Your average pot smoker contributes just as much to gang and gun violence as the average tweaker. Their money fuels it. That means they contribute more to urban violence than they wish to admit, and certainly contribute more to the problem than the local rod and gun club. Yes it is about a failed drug policy, I have no problem with pot smokers in general. My problem is that when an innocent gets hit in the crossfire with a bullet from their connection, they point the finger at me instead of looking in the mirror.

My problem is with assholes like Bill Mauhar, who fuels the problem with his money and and bitches about rural farmers, people in the south, etc. are causing "gun violence". That is before his evangelical atheism. He may not be a racist or a homophobe, but his bigotry is no less vile.

[Starboard Tack]

60. I think you're way off the mark there.

The laws fuel the contraband nature of drugs, not the consumers. I don't think there is much gang involvement with pot anymore. Certainly not here in CA.

[gejohnston]

61. bullshit

It is distribution. The gangs are probably involved in distribution. If there were no consumers, there would be no money to buy the guns and ammo (of course, if drugs were legal they would just go to court like civilized people. Assuming they become civilized themselves.)

If you stumble across a pot grove in a national park, what are your chances of walking out alive? These people are not Utopian hippies.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103866520

[Logical]

65. And, once again, how are you going to remove guns from the criminals. Full list please!

[Starboard Tack]

66. I'm not the one providing them

That would all you guys who keep buying them like they're going out of style.
But, seriously, the best way is deterrence. make the penalty for using a firearm during the commission of a crime unacceptable. Make the penalty carrying them in public for any reason unacceptable. You'd be surprised how quickly people learn when they have to.
But I won't be removing them unless they give me a reason, like assaulting me. It wasn't necessary to remove all cars from the roads to make drivers obey the law. Guns should be even easier.

[Logical]

67. I love your idea. It is just not practical......

It is an automatic prison sentence for a felon to carry a gun. The felons know this. But they still carry guns.
You could make using a gun in a crime a automatic life sentence. Do you think it would stop criminals from carrying guns? No.
People still shoot and kill people, 15,000 a year, when they know they will go to prison for life most of the time.
I think you give the criminals too much credit.
Guns are here to stay. That is the problem. No way to stop it.
And DUI sentences are severe. But people still drive drunk! Bad example.

[Starboard Tack]

69. I'm not talking about felons carrying guns

Everyone. Zero tolerance in urban and commercial zones. Might take a little while, but it would work, eventually. And the numbers would go down. There is always a way to stop it. All we need is the desire. Massive PR campaign to start with. People are sheep. Always were. Always will be.

[Logical]

73. The only ones who will honor your rules are the non-criminals. n-t

[gejohnston]

68. us guys?

You seem to have us confused with NYPD and Lake County, Indiana, Sheriff's Department.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/10/25/nyc-cops-arrested-in-connection-with-gun-smuggling-take-down/

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-22/news/chi-former-lake-county-coroner-and-sheriffs-officers-to-face-charges-20110922_1_gun-trafficking-laser-sights-face-charges

Every used one I buy at flea markets is one that won't be used by thugs.

[Starboard Tack]

70. That's good.

But gun owners, in general, are responsible. Without that market, there would be no guns.

[gejohnston]

72. really?

less so than bong owners.

[Oneka]

74. How many sides of a point would you like to argue in the same thread?

the best way is deterrence. make the penalty for using a firearm during the commission of a crime unacceptable. Make the penalty carrying them in public for any reason unacceptable. You'd be surprised how quickly people learn when they have to.

The guy you quoted in the OP disagrees.

"The notion that criminals are sensitive to that kind of change in law is far fetched,"

WOW. arguing for more gun laws in a thread you started, that describes how gun laws are ineffective, is really rich.

Just fucking WOW..

[Starboard Tack]

78. Apparently, you have a comprehension problem?

Try reading the OP again. Kleck said that more lenient laws have no effect on the criminal mind. Why would they?
Imagine that cars were banned inside city limits, do you think criminals would still drive them? Read, think, then post next time.

[Oneka]

94. My comprehension skillls work just fine

Kleck, says a gun law has little to no effect on criminal behavior.
Starboard tack jumps on the opportunity
to rub pro-gunners collective noses in Klecks own words. Yay for you , whatever
makes you happy , I guess.
Then just a bit farther downthread you posit.

You'd be surprised how quickly people learn when they have to.

So in your world "lenient gun laws have no effect on criminal's behavior, yet , "restrictive" gun laws would quickly bring about changes to criminal's behavior?

If the irony escapes you, perhaps you should look into some alternative education.

[X_Digger]

100. It's not the first incident of cognitive dissonance with this particular poster.

We all get a chuckle when he appears to hold two contradictory opinions at the same time.

[Clames]

6. So Kleck is basically stating...

...the same findings by the CDC, Cato Institute, and anyone else with a bit of common sense and not funded by the Joyce Foundation. Got it.

[iverglas]

101. so you are basically stating

that your preferred sources for pretty much anything ... well, just the one there: the Cato Institute. Nice. Very nice. But I will not feign surprise.

If you want to produce what you are suggesting the CDC said, please do. I expect I'll be able to link you to 87 posts at DU debunking what you produce.

[mvccd1000]

7. Agreed.

I scoff (privately, to myself, to remain polite) when I read of someone on the NRA side claiming that their concealed handgun will deter a criminal because "he won't know who might be armed."

I have the same reaction when I read of a brady bunch fan claiming that this next gun control law is the one that's going to remove guns from the hands of (criminals/mentally unbalanced/children/irresponsible adults/nutty teabaggers).

A handgun is a personal protection tool. The only person I think my gun will protect is me. The only criminal I think my gun will deter is the one who sees it. (If you're out running the roads looking for some easy cash at midnight and see me standing at the ATM or pumping gas in a lonely gas station, you'll probably also see my holstered pistol and keep on driving. I don't need "tactical advantage" or "the element of surprise" - I just need you to keep driving in search of an easier target.)

[NewMoonTherian]

8. This post should be placed at the top of the main Gun Group page, in a nice frame or something. n/t

Last edited Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:19 PM - Edit history (1)

[Starboard Tack]

10. So your gun is not concealed, I assume.

Which makes a lot more sense as a deterrent, than some old fart rummaging around in his fanny pack for his equalizer.
I much prefer the honesty of open carry. That way everyone has the option of avoiding you.

[spin]

14. This old fart has his snub nosed .38 in his pants pocket ...

and if I suspect trouble I just innocently drop my hand into my pocket. I'll bet that if some fool attacks me with the intention and the ability to put me in the hospital or six feet under, I can pull my handgun and fire faster than an individual who has a handgun holstered on his belt.

While it is true that open carry may discourage some criminals, others may decide to target open carried handgun. A person who open carries has an item worth somewhere between $300 to possibly $1000 or more in a holster on his hip. Most people don't carry that much cash and the firearm would be easy to sell on the street.

edited to revise comments

[Starboard Tack]

15. Damned if you do, damned if you don't

I like the hand in the pocket thing, though. Nothing like psychological warfare. Personally, if I felt nervous walking around some strange neighborhood at night (God knows why I'd be doing that) I think the best tool would be a 2 way radio on my belt, or just an earpiece. And only drive a vehicle that looks like it's government issue.

[spin]

17. The smartest approach is to stay out of strange neighborhoods late at night ...

unless absolutely necessary.

The best way to survive a gun fight is not to be in one. In all fairness, merely practicing situational awareness will keep you out of trouble far better than carrying a gun will. In most cases on the street, if you find yourself in a situation where you have to use a gun for self defense you screwed up by not being alert.

[Starboard Tack]

18. I couldn't agree more.

[ellisonz]

102. Hope you don't blow your nuts off one day!

[rl6214]

75. "the honesty of open carry"

back on this BS line again?

[sarisataka]

19. Correct me if I am wrong

It has been a long time since I looked at Kleck's findings but I don't think he ever claimed lenient laws would deter crime. His finding was the guns, primarily handguns, are used more often defensively than used to commit crimes.

It was others who made that claim, based on their interpretations of his findings.

[Starboard Tack]

20. You are correct

He claims they are used "defensively" (apparently 2.5 million times a year). LOL.
That's how connected to reality this so-called "criminologist" is. He needs to get out of the classroom and see what is really going down.

[sarisataka]

23. Lies, damned lies and...

Most people I know, right and left, do believe that number is inaccurate and overstated.

It does not keep the NRA et al. from using it to further their cause.

On the other hand Brady et al. are willing to compare self defense shootings to criminal and accidental shootings, conveniently ignoring where a crime was prevented/stopped without injury to either party.


Using Joseph Stalin as a guide- The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.- I have tried to apply a cost/benefit rating to the issue of guns. Unfortunately I am far too amateur and my statistics classes were too long ago to gather any meaningful result. There is too much conflicting data out there.

What I can say is if guns are restricted, logically gun related deaths and injuries will decrease. OTH there will be a significant number of new victims who may have saved themselves...

The biggest problem is that it is difficult to experiment. Once one path is taken it is very hard to change.
I wonder how many Londoners regretted their county's gun laws this last year?

[Starboard Tack]

26. I don't wonder how many Londoners regretted UK gun laws

I know it is very, very few. The last thing the vast majority of Brits want is a gun invasion like we have here. They blink in disbelief at the handgun homicide rates here. Even the cops don't want guns and for good reason. Street violence is far more prevalent in the UK. I worked as a cop in the UK during the Mods and Rockers era and the level of raw violence was mind boggling. Street violence in the UK is an age old class sport and it can get bloody, but there are rules, and no guns is the number one rule. Even back then, in the sixties, when guns were more available. Same thing with career criminals, no guns. Those who break that rule are pariahs.
Most of those using guns in the UK are either gang members emulating their American counterparts or eastern European thugs who have not learned or refuse to play by the rules. This relatively new phenomenon, coupled with terrorism has necessitated certain police units being armed.

You are correct in assuming that restrictions will inevitably lead to some victims who may have been able to defend themselves. I honestly believe that number is infinitesimal, as UK crime stats demonstrate.

[sarisataka]

30. I will differ

to someone with first hand experience, also knowing the UK and US traditions regarding firearms is vastly different.

As you pointed out, street violence is endemic, at a level that would have Americans up in arms screaming at the police and mayors. I will acknowledge the unwritten rules of hooliganism do place limits; much as school disputes in the US used to have.

I will respectfully disagree that the increase would be infinitesimal. Taking Kleck's number as too high, most similar studies place the defensive use of firearms at 800,000 to 1.5 million per year. One critic of Kleck stated he thought the number should be reduced by a factor of 10. At 250,000 the is greater than all firearm deaths and injuries combined. Even a total gun ban is believed would not reduce the overall crime rate as criminals would switch to other weapons such as knives, clubs, pointed sticks and hacked cell phone pictures of Rosie O'Donnell (sorry, couldn't resist:evilgrin

Other differences between the US and UK:
-the vast supply of guns on hand
-UK being an island has much more control of its border than the US notoriously porous borders
-the US has eastern European thugs here already plus well armed cartels to the south which could be emboldened to move north.
-Although they may only come here to return borrowed property to Mr. Holder

[Starboard Tack]

31. I don't buy the DGU numbers at all

The vast majority are brandishings, which I don't consider defensive by any stretch of the imagination. All gun use against the person of another is offensive by definition. It may well be justified, especially if the aggressor is armed with a gun, but it is still offensive. The routine carrying of handguns is a failed policy from the start and will never lead to a solution for society, only the individual.
The eastern European thugs in the US are a mere blip on the radar, blending in to an already gun infested culture. In the UK they are a relatively new phenomenon.
The porous borders are hardly a conduit for guns coming into the US. They flow south to supply the drug cartels south of the border and a few flow north to supply the few Canericans who prefer the Userican way.
Carrying a handgun around may serve the odd individual well, but not the public. It really is that simple.
I am not anti-gun, just anti-stupidity. Guns have there place and it is unfortunate that the UK imposed such harsh restrictions. Unfortunate, but necessary.

[gejohnston]

34. total nonsense

showing a gun to deter an attacker is not brandishing under the law. It is defensive under the law and the real world.
Defensive is any action to stop aggression. Sorry, I don't buy into "anti" newspeak.

de·fense (d-fns)
n.
1. The act of defending against attack, danger, or injury.
2. A means or method of defending or protecting.
3. Sports The act or an instance of defending a championship against a challenger: will box in his third defense of his title.
4. An argument in support or justification of something. See Synonyms at apology.
5. Law
a. The action of the defendant in opposition to complaints against him or her.
b. The defendant and his or her legal counsel.
6. The science or art of defending oneself; self-defense.
7. often (dfns) Sports
a. Means or tactics used in trying to stop the opposition from scoring.
b. The team or those players on the team attempting to stop the opposition from scoring.
8. The military, governmental, and industrial complex, especially as it authorizes and manages weaponry production.
tr.v. de·fensed, de·fens·ing, de·fens·es Sports
1. To attempt to stop (the opposition) from scoring.
2. To play defense against (an opponent); guard.

[Starboard Tack]

41. Stopping imaginary aggression with aggression is not defensive

Stopping real aggression with commensurate force is defensive. Using a gun against someone with a knife is only defensive if there is nowhere to retreat to. Showing a gun as a deterrent is assault with a deadly weapon, which has now been legalized in many parts of this country. Another symbol of a crumbling civilization.

[rl6214]

76. totally irrational

awefully glad it isn't your opinion that counts, as many others including those making the laws differ from your opinion as well.

[Starboard Tack]

80. Irrational? Moi? That's funny.

Irrational because many others differ? You could get a job on the telly with that kind of humor.

[Straw Man]

98. Real vs. imaginary aggression.

Stopping real aggression with commensurate force is defensive. Using a gun against someone with a knife is only defensive if there is nowhere to retreat to.

So if an 80-year-old with a gun is attacked by a 20-year-old with a knife, the 80-year-old is supposed to run, and can only employ the gun if and when the 20-year-old catches up? I respectfully submit that by then it might be too late for the gun to have any practical effect.

Showing a gun as a deterrent is assault with a deadly weapon, which has now been legalized in many parts of this country. Another symbol of a crumbling civilization.

That's right -- it's far more civilized to be beaten, stabbed, raped, or shot than to commit the unpardonable faux pas of exposing a gun.

[Starboard Tack]

108. Still spouting the party line I see

Obey the criminal, 80 year old guy vs. 20 year old thug. Is that all you have?
If the 80 year old or anyone can't remove himself from the situation, then he can use whatever force necessary. We all know and agree on that. Don't try to put words in my mouth. If you are cornered, you do what you need to do.

I'm not talking about justifiable defense. I'm talking about legalized homicide, which is what your precious SYG law allows. Get with the program Straw Man.

[Straw Man]

116. Still spouting something else, I see.

Obey the criminal, 80 year old guy vs. 20 year old thug. Is that all you have?
If the 80 year old or anyone can't remove himself from the situation, then he can use whatever force necessary. We all know and agree on that.

Except that you didn't "know and agree" on it. You made a blanket statement about what you consider "commensurate force," and you failed to take any extenuating circumstances into account until they were shoved into your face. Your propaganda failed the light-of-day test.

I'm not talking about justifiable defense. I'm talking about legalized homicide, which is what your precious SYG law allows. Get with the program Straw Man.

Now you are. Before, you were prating about "commensurate force" as if you were the Marquess of Fucking Queensbury. If your program is all about mealy-mouthed buzzwords like "legalized homicide," I would just as soon not be with it, Starboard.

"Your precious SYG law"? Please look at the text of the relevant sections of the law and explain to me how in your view they would have justified what Zimmerman did -- or at least what everybody is assuming that he did.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

[X_Digger]

77. It's his own creation, thank god, stupid as it is. n/t

[sarisataka]

38. Offense vs defense

I would say it is a matter of semantics. A counter-attack is indeed offensive but in response to an attack so therefore defensive. If brandishing serves the purpose of ending the crime I deem that sufficient. It would be helpful if such incidents were reported more often to develop a better picture of criminal activity.

Comprehensive carrying of weapons would only serve society in a true, self-policing libertarian society; which is about as likely as a successful, true communist society. It is however that individual who is facing the hypothetical attack. at that point the individual does not care about the society nor society about the individual.

If there were heavy restrictions on guns in the US I would see basic economics come into play, reversing the flow of weapons into the US. The supply/demand would be reversed.

"Unfortunate, but necessary" To the point where England's Olympians must travel abroad to practice for shooting sports? where there was nearly an age limit imposed on who would be able to attend the shooting events?

This is the fear of US gun owners- where do the "sane laws" end? Or would they continue into insanity chasing an impossible utopian ideal?

[Starboard Tack]

48. Where I come from, brandishing is a criminal offense, as it should be.

It isn't semantics. Carrying a weapon in the street is an offensive act, period. I don't care who does it, a cop, security guard or Joe Blow, it is offensive. The legality of the act doesn't make it any less offensive. Capital punishment is legal. Doesn't make it right.

The plight of England's Olympians is a tiny price to pay for public safety. I do not support or propose a UK type ban on guns in this country. We have a completely different dynamic here. I propose that gun owners exercise some self restraint, as most do and stop supporting these insane libertarian practices of using guns as problem solving tools. I would rather chase utopian ideals than sink into total anarchy, which is the direction we're heading.

[sarisataka]

56. Perhaps I missunderstood

I took your meaning of offensive as an antonym of defensive. I think you were maybe saying you are offended.

I agree brandishing is a crime. Just caused you are pissed at your neighbor for allowing his dog to take a dump on your yard again you cannot wave your gun at him. But killing I think we agree is a crime also yet I think we would also agree that if you came upon a person assaulting a child and you attacked that person, be it with a gun, knife, rock or your bare hands and that attack then dies that it is entirely justified. In my eyes if a person id unjustly attacked with lethal force, if the other party displays a weapon be it knife, gun or tac nuke, and that attack ends without further violence, then the brandishing is justified.


My point of England's Olympians was to point out what different people consider sane laws. While you seem to think that is a small price, how exactly is prohibiting them training for their sport enhancing public safety? Have members of the team been committing armed robbery?


Have you considered chasing utopian ideals may lead you into anarchy?

The US is a violent place- that is a given. n number of crimes are facilitated by a gun while x number of crimes are prevented. How will the removal of guns affect the y total person on person crime rate? Will criminals suddenly change their ways if their preferred toll is removed?

The UK is also a violent place. Did the overall crime rate in the UK drop following the gun bans or are their just less gun crimes so any other cost is irrelevant? Can we blithely ignore the plight of victims of assault and sex crime who bear scars for life, physical and psychological, as it is for the good of society?

A gun is a problem solving tool. A very effective, limited use tool with potential fatal side effects of misuse. So is a circular saw. As I would not use the saw to remove a splinter so would I not use a gun to kid those kids to turn down their music...

[PavePusher]

62. "offensive" is a matter of intent and not an absolute.

A weapon is only offensive or defensive according to how it is employed.

Edit: Dropping crime rates = headed towards anarchy? Ummm...

[sarisataka]

64. to clarify

I meant in a violent society does removing a defensive option because it is also used by the criminal result in an increase or decrease of anarchy?

Will crime rates keep dropping with stricter gun laws,drop faster or...
Reverse and start to climb?

Will the rape victim console herself with that for the good of society she only suffered a "lesser"crime?

[Starboard Tack]

71. Of course. You are correct.

And if you point your finger at someone, you may be acting offensively or simply indicating something.

[gejohnston]

28. Even Joyce funded

Cook followed his methods and got roughly the same result. So, it has been replicated. That is why you have to read the whole study and not just the conclusion, because Cook did a lot of hand waving to keep the Joyce money.

[gejohnston]

37. so-called "criminologist"?

Education
Ph.D. 1979, University of Illinois at Urbana; Sociology
M.A. 1975, University of Illinois at Urbana; Sociology
B.A. 1973, University of Illinois, with High Honors and with Distinction; Sociology

https://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php

Are you always against science or just science you don't like?

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. It's obvious Kleck's not much of a criminologist- after all, he says things ST doesn't like.

Antis prefer people with real qualifications in the field, like professors of emergency medicine and economists...

[Starboard Tack]

44. You call 2.5 million DGU's science?

Give me a break. The guy lost all credibility with that one. I'm sure the NRA paid him a lot more than FSU.
Remember, paper never refuses ink.

[gejohnston]

51. the NRA never paid him

The NRA really doesn't actually like him (or he them) because of his own personal views.

[ellisonz]

103. So your own sociologist...

...thinks the NRA is bonkers.

[gejohnston]

104. Actually

I have talked to the guy. I got the impression that it would be more accurate to say that he thinks the NRA and Brady are both full of shit.

[ellisonz]

105. Maybe you should take a hint...

...from Gary Kleck and call out the NRA bullshit on here too.

[gejohnston]

106. I do

and I call out the Brady bullshit too.

[PavePusher]

63. IIRC 2.5M was only the upper limit of his estimate.

By using only that number, you are being quite misleading.

[Starboard Tack]

79. Honestly, if he'd said 500,000 I'd think the same. Kleck's survey is a joke.

Sorry, but he lost all credibility with that one. The only people who buy it are those who gain from it.
He extrapolated these figures, supposedly, from a phone survey of 5,000 people. Of those 5,000, only 222 claimed any experience of a DGU. Guess who they were, gun owners who believe in using guns for DGU, and they don't just believe in it, but they averaged 1.5 DGU's apiece. LOL. That's like doing a survey in an insane asylum and asking if anyone's seen Jesus of late. If their figures were correct then this -5% of the population alone had stopped more crime than was committed in the nation. Might as well abandon the notion of having police forces. This entire report falls apart right from the beginning. Imagine, if these numbers were anywhere close to being real, how many of the rest of us would have died at the mercy of those criminals, committing crimes that never occurred.

[gejohnston]

81. then all phone surveys are bullshit

and 5,000 is a large sample.
His was not the only one like that. Like I said, Phillip Cook came up with 1.5 million. Peter Hart's 1981 survey come up with 640,000-800,000.

[Starboard Tack]

82. Many phone surveys are bullshit.

Especially if the respondent has an interest in responding in a particular way, which includes this one. 5,000 is a relatively large sample, I agree. Now, think about it. Only 222 out of the 5,000 account for all the DGU's. So, the real survey uses these 222 for all it's info. Not only that, they account for 1.5 average , each one of them. This tells me that the 222 contains an inordinate number of gun waving freaks yelling "Get off my damned property". Then add the bullshit artists. They themselves admit that they were not defending against someone with an observable weapon, not to mention a gun. in all but a tiny % of cases. I seriously doubt if there are 10,000 legitimate DGU's a year. Probably a lot less. If Kleck's numbers were anywhere close to reality, there really would be blood in the streets. I don't know if he's being paid to propagate this nonsense or he's just a really poor scientist, but I'm not buying.

[gejohnston]

83. or more likely

you reject the science because it does not fit your ideology. Do you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old too?

[Starboard Tack]

84. I reject bad science.

I reject polls that make no sense and extrapolations that make even less sense. Math and logic are at the base of all good science. They are both absent here. Well, he is a professor at FSU, hardly the brightest star in the academic galaxy. I actually attended FSU for a while, studying psychology. What a joke that was. Switched to Oceanography, which was not a bad course.

[gejohnston]

85. In other words

you can't disprove the math and can't deal with his results being confirmed by Phil Cook and Marvin Wolfgang of all people.
So, you accuse him of being inept. I suppose the NRA paid off the American Society of Criminology when they awarded him the Michael J. Hindelang Award for that work.

DGUs are real
cars really are killing the polar bears and everything else
and the Earth really is 4 billion years old.

[Simo 1939_1940]

91. Here's highly respected "criminologist" Marvin Wolfgang (RIP)

discussing Dr. Gary Kleck's "bad science". (A tribute to a view I have opposed)

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Wolfgang1.html

[PavePusher]

95. "I seriously doubt if there are 10,000 legitimate DGU's a year."

Even the lowest estimates indicate approx. 108K uses per year in a non-Kleck study.


https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

[Starboard Tack]

96. I know! And I don't buy any of them.

Let's be honest, the validity of any poll is about as accurate as asking 17-18 year old males how many times they've had sex, or asking anglers how big was their biggest fish. There are some things that are never going to have any validity in a phone based poll. Nope. You gotta be there to know the truth.

I'm reminded of a night many years ago. I was sitting in a patrol car around midnight, writing up a report, when this guy tapped on my window. I wound it down and asked if I could help. He replied, "No, you fucker! I hate cops. I've got a gun and I'm going to kill you, you fuckin' rozzer!" He was obviously drunk, quite a bit bigger than me and I considered that he might be serious. It was a rough part of town. So, I'm thinking "What do I do? I don't have a gun and maybe he does. He's also quite a bit bigger and could probably beat the crap out of me and he's pressed up against my door, so getting out of the car is going to be difficult." Well, I pressed the transmit button on my radio mike and said "Why would you want to kill me here at the corner of Bank and Green?" Within a minute three other cars had arrived. We made sure he didn't have gun, took a knife off him and gave him a ride home. I thought about that later, and wondered how a cop in America might have dealt with it.
But it was definitely a defensive radio use.

[Simo 1939_1940]

90. "That's like doing a survey in an insane asylum and asking if anyone's seen Jesus of late."

Actually, it's not. All survey respondents who answered in the affirmative in the Kleck/Gertz survey had to answer a long series of follow-up questions, and all positive responses were heavily scrutinized. It would take someone very fleet indeed to create a credible false scenario on the fly and avoid detection. And you would know this if you actually read the NSDS.

[PavePusher]

93. IIRC again, most of the pro-restrictionists base their claims upon studies...

with far smaller data samples. Some light reading.....


http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x334436

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz2.htm



http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kellerman-schaffer.html

[Simo 1939_1940]

86. And recall that the survey was taken when crime was at it's peak, so ST

misleads on another count - insinuating that Kleck is insisting that that there are 2.5 million DGU's today, when crime is roughly 1/2 of what it was in '93. Kleck can hardly be accused of pushing the 2.5 figure when he refers regularly to the surveys within the margin of error (1.5 million) that support his findings. Scientists publish the results of their surveys giving credit to their readers who (generally) are aware that their figures could be high based on the margin of error.

I don't buy the notion promoted by some of Kleck's critics that DGU's are completely impossible to measure. (If you can't move the goalposts......hell - just take them off the field! How very convenient.) Even if the 1.5 figure is high it is extremely unlikely that DGU's are significantly lower than OGU's, given that there are somewhere in the order of 1/2 million OGU's annually. And this is the crux of the biscuit -- Kleck is a problem for those who push restriction because he has destroyed for all time the "guns are purely evil" meme. Add to that the fact that he's a lifelong liberal Dem who has never taken a dime from the NRA (filthy accusations notwithstanding) and you have a compounding problem - an individual who can't be dismissed as a freeper. These are the two primary reasons he attracts the vitriol he does.

As GE pointed out, The American Society of Criminology presented Gary Kleck with their highest award precisely for his methodology in measuring DGU's -- so who cares if some anonymous person on a message board who hasn't even read the NSDS calls him a fool, and falsely accuses him of being a tool of the NRA?

[Simo 1939_1940]

87. Let the record show that this member is willing to libel a liberal Democrat.

"I'm sure the NRA paid him a lot more than FSU."

[Starboard Tack]

88. I actually corrected that

I have no evidence he was paid, though it wouldn't surprise me. After studying his "study", I'm quite prepared to accept that his paper is the result of bad science. He was sucked in because the poll itself was so flawed.

[Simo 1939_1940]

89. ".....the poll itself is so flawed."

Again, no intelligent explanation of why/how the survey was flawed. And as long as you're allowed to speculate regarding Kleck's funding, I'll speculate that not only haven't you even read the NSDS, but you were completely unaware that the American Society of Criminology presented Kleck with the Michael Hindelang Award. So you can put the word criminologist in quotes all you want - it only makes you look uninformed. As I said before:

American Society of Criminolgy -- 10
Starboard Tack -- 0

edited for spelling

[Simo 1939_1940]

92. Kindly point to exactly where you retracted. NT

[Simo 1939_1940]

99. So by virtue of the fact that you're not disclosing where you "corrected" your libelous

smear, we're to assume you are *now* correcting it. Got it.

After studying his "study", I'm quite prepared to accept that his paper is the result of bad science.

And by virtue of the fact that previous posts have made it clear that you were completely unaware of efforts that Kleck & Gertz made to exclude false positive reports of DGU's, and are completely unwilling to be specific about your protests I am quite prepared to assert that you have done no real "study" at all w/regard to the NSDS.

[Starboard Tack]

107. They made efforts, but it made no difference

They were doomed to fail from the start. They called 5000 people and found 222 who claimed DGUs, averaging 1.5 each.
These 222 are his representative sample. Give me a break. Tell you what, why don't you try it yourself? Call a hundred people at random all over the country and ask them. You should get 4 or 5. Good luck.
If his numbers were correct, the streets would be flowing with blood and you'd hear gunshots and people yelling day and night. Asking questions related to the male ego is a tricky thing to do, if you are looking for accuracy. Fine if you want a good fishing story. You've taken up enough of my time now. Time you start thinking for yourself. Goodnight.

[Simo 1939_1940]

109. You continue to display your ignorance re. defensive gun use.

If his numbers were correct, the streets would be flowing with blood and you'd hear gunshots and people yelling day and night.

As I've pointed out already - bullshit. Most defensive gun uses don't even involve shots being fired. But you just keep on hangin' on to your factose intolerant fantasies......it's what you do best.

Tell you what, why don't you try it yourself?

Don't need to. Others have done that work for me. For an example of one, google "NSPOF pdf"

Time you start thinking for yourself.

Thinking is exactly your problem, ST - unfortunately your thinking unit is broken. Thanks but no thanks. I'll stick with the facts, and think only when I'm certain I have all of my facts in a row.

[Starboard Tack]

110. You just don't get it do you?

Defensive Gun Use as you and Kleck define it, includes not firing a shot. Just some yahoo yelling "Get off my lawn, before I shoot you!" Calling that a DGU is an oxymoron. Thinking people read between the lines.
Hey, the Easter Bunny's coming soon.

[X_Digger]

111. So which is it? Is it a DGU only when someone's shot?

And therefore, by those criteria 1.5-2.5m is an unbelievable number?

Well guess what.. no fucking duh.

You can't have it both ways.

Either DGU's include situations where no shots are fired, or you don't get to bitch at the numbers when those criteria are included.

[Starboard Tack]

112. Oh right!

Like Gramps taking the old shotgun out of the cupboard cause Grandma heard a noise and chasing off some teenagers, or imaginary teenagers. Look at the table, make your own extrapolations, draw your own conclusions, but be realistic, for goodness sake.

[X_Digger]

113. You let us know when your "DGU" research is done, mkay? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

115. OK

[Starboard Tack]

114. What is Defensive Gun Use?

No, it doesn't necessitate shots being fired.
For me, it necessitates using a gun (showing, pointing, shooting, whichever) when no other option is available to save one's skin. Not running up to a guy who is driving away in your car and shooting him. Not leading a mentally disturbed neighbor, who entered your house with a bow and asked for money, out of your house, with the promise of money, and executing him in the street, after he has removed all his clothes and presents no danger to you or your child.
My point is, that most, like way most, anecdotal DGUs are questionable at the very least. I'm not suggesting that some are not valid. Your own experience makes me wonder, but I cannot say that I wouldn't have responded the way you did. I put it in that gray area of "were there other viable options, or was it a convenient choice". You are the only person who can honestly answer that question. I don't walk in your shoes and you don't walk in mine. Neither of us has the moral authority to dictate the other's choices.
The 2 DGUs I mention above were declared righteous by LE and some members here. I found them highly questionable, as did many others.
What do you think?

[gejohnston]

117. here are a couple obvious examples of each

These are not DGUs. Ok, they are DSUs.
http://www.adn.com/2011/02/14/1702523/police-woman-nearly-severs-intruders.html##ixzz1E2weIdAV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erika_Eiffel
forgot the appropriate smilie

I think we can agree this is a legit DGU
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-04-03/news/17920609_1_governor-palin-diana-palin-sarah-palin
http://www.adn.com/2009/04/13/758162/diana-palin-indicted-on-break.html
OK it's old news, but it still cracks me up.

[Starboard Tack]

118. LOL All are good. All are inside the home.

When someone invades your home, the whole deal changes IMO. The intruder has devalued his life by his action and the homeowner's life appreciates in value accordingly. Them's the rules of that game.

On the street the rules are quite different and can change very quickly.