bob Aldridge remark which caused me to cough & need get up for a drink of water: The only reputable survey, to date, that examined defensive gun uses exclusively was by Kleck and Gertz, 1995, which showed 2,549,862 total defensive gun uses.
The above kleck dgu study made ~5,000 phone calls pan am, rec'd ~60 total dgus with a dropback of 5 years, of which ~11 respon ses were 'woundings', & just 2 justifiable homicides. 54% were 'verbal dgus' (tho this could include overlapping).
Aldridge: The JG piece would have us believe data from 12 reputable, independent surveys, including the only one that examined defensive gun use exclusively, “isn’t true.”
And what are you contending Aldridge? that with their wide variations in results like from gallup 1.6 million and LAtimes 3.6 mill, these dgu surveys have a lock on credibility????
(Kleck study 1995) asked specifically whether or not anyone in the household had used a gun during the last year or past 5 years to protect self or property against a person perpetrating a crime ... 222 of the 4799 respondents reported having at least one DGU in their household in the past 5 years.. correcting for oversampling in some regions, this figure drops to 66 personal accounts of DGUs in the preceding year http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html
wiki corrects me: After correcting for oversampling in some regions, this figure drops to 66 personal accounts of DGUs in the preceding year, indicating that 1.326 percent of adults nationwide had experienced at least one DGU.
So I stand corrected. One does not 'commit' a dgu, nor 'perform' a dgu. One EXPERIENCES a dgu.
Wow. What have I been missing all these years?
kang: This is a short but fascinating article that lays out the facts on defensive gun uses. The net benefits of gun ownership are incredibly positive for society. Case closed
Maybe in the 2nd amendment mythology bible the case is closed. But for us readers who don't subscribe, the fascinating article you note, is simply another canard. You need explain the wide discrepancies in dgu totals, as well as the apparent 'forever' dropback, which seems to me would negate 'per year' basis for those studies. Unless it is somehow compensated to achieve a per year basis, maybe that's it, eh?
= new reply since forum marked as read
