Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: CNN: This is how the NRA loses [View all]friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)67. Really? The CDC did one a couple of years ago. Here's an excerpt:
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#16
Defensive Use of Guns
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was used by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.
Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in publicconcealed or open carrymay have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.
Defensive Use of Guns
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was used by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.
Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in publicconcealed or open carrymay have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
70 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Unintended comedy alert. The American public came to its senses, seeing you couldn't ban something
LittleBlue
Oct 2015
#2
I realize that misdirection and conflation are on your faxed sheet of talking points
villager
Oct 2015
#7
People are neither physically dependent on guns, nor can they manufacture them in a bathtub
frizzled
Oct 2015
#19
Guns can be homemade fairly easily, as any Australian bikie or Afghan peasant can tell you
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2015
#23
Ah yes, we forgot about those "homemade mass killings" that have happened in Australia
villager
Oct 2015
#25
What do you propose to do about the 300 million extant guns in the US?
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2015
#29
It seems irrational to purposefully conflate regulation with banning and prohibition.
LanternWaste
Oct 2015
#44
It was legal to make up to 200 gallons a year of your own wine during Prohibition
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2015
#64
Having to DIY a zip gun is an acceptable barrier to entry for crime and will stop mass shootings
frizzled
Oct 2015
#30
So to be clear, E38 -- you support the NRA, and think they should continue to thrive?
villager
Oct 2015
#15
Glad to see that you're standing watch for Communi... err, NRA sympathizers here
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2015
#24
Since "NRA Sympathizer" means you, and since there's no moral difference between them
villager
Oct 2015
#26
"Since "NRA Sympathizer" means you..." A lie- and you are not the first to promulgate it
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2015
#34
Or possibly preventing the NRA from denying the CDC relevant health related studies again
LanternWaste
Oct 2015
#46
I don't respond to vacuous inquisitions ("are you now, or have you ever been...")
Eleanors38
Oct 2015
#49
No loss to him. It's also not the first time for that particular untruth of yours:
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2015
#66
There is no "proliferation" of "assault rifles, machine guns." These weapons are strictly regulated
Eleanors38
Oct 2015
#47
How does someone seriously argue fewer restrictions pave the road to more restrictions?
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#4
What's really appalling -- and unsurprising -- is that they are here *defending the NRA*
villager
Oct 2015
#8
Exactly. And there is zero daylight between NRA defending, and anything else on that list
villager
Oct 2015
#17
A couple NRA defenders here claim to "Feel the Bern," but really they "Feel the Nuge"
villager
Oct 2015
#20
Yeah, I never used Ignore before but I found it enormously helpful. I was delighted with
CTyankee
Oct 2015
#31
Eleanors38 isn't the one that's been claiming that other DU members are NRA sympathizers
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2015
#36
WP: "Most gun owners don’t belong to the NRA — and they don’t agree with it either"
villager
Oct 2015
#56
I'm guessing juror #3 needs to bone up on the Democratic Party platform...
cherokeeprogressive
Oct 2015
#68
Exactly. Plus I tend to resist "If you believe ____, you're not one of us!" kind of thinking.
cherokeeprogressive
Oct 2015
#70