So, your argument is that we should allow criminals to have guns because, poor things, they might need to defend themselves, either against other criminals or, I guess, against the law-abiding people they’re committing crimes against? I do not find this a persuasive argument.
“There don’t have to be many, as a percentage of all respondents to the poll.”
Especially since as far as I know, the chance that a visit from the authorities will result from what you say anonymously about defensive gun use, in response to a telephone poll, is zero. Does anyone really think that the researchers keep a record of the names of those who claim defensive gun use, and then turn those names over to the police? Come on.
If half of them are bogus, what does that do to the 2.5 MM number, Fang? Is 1.25 MM not enough?
People believe sillier things - I’ve heard there’s a sizeable number of people that aren’t interested in registering to vote, because they’re sure they’ll get popped for an old warrant. When a casual affirmative makes you look a law-abiding citizen, why wouldn’t you give it to the nice person on the phone?
Keep digging and you’ll eventually find he isn’t a pawn of the NRA.
That was the only thing that indicated he wasn’t… so just mostly a pawn of the NRA.
So then there’d only be 10,000 missing corpses of criminals shot by defensive gun uses? And only, let’s say, 50,000 missing gunshot victims? Nope, still don’t buy it.
He was judged less harshly by someone with credentials:
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6854&context=jclc
I can’t tell where you’re going with this Fang - the proposition that a low affirmative response rate means whatever you want it to, or that the numbers are invalid if they don’t back check to some personal recipe you’re cooking.
There are enough variables that, regardless of what you conjecture, the percentages swing the product so widely you can’t prove anything. The missing police reports sound interesting, though - tell me who compiles that kind of data and I’ll be glad to help.
Don’t expect anything soon, though - we’ve packed and are moving tomorrow to a place where cable is mostly a dream.
Sounds rural…hope you have your guns handy to shoot the critters that might try to eat you.
catahoula, you cite Marvin Wolfgang saying that he doesn’t know any research contradicting Kleck. He said that in 1995! In the intervening 20 years, there has been plenty of research contradicting Kleck.
Hmmm… this might be a start:
But note… gun rights activists were not happy with him - I guess they didn’t mind all the police officers getting shot.
The plaintiffs had Badger Guns dead to rights. The gun sellers knew they were selling to a straw purchaser. The actual guy was right there, picking out the gun. When the straw purchaser filled out the form, he answered the question about whether he was buying the gun for himself with “No,” and Badger Guns “helped” him change that answer to “Yes.” And it was all on video.
Just another responsible gun owner from my news today . . .
I am frustrated by the PR image that gun owners are all law-abiding, responsible Boy Scouts when every day my news tells me that there is a fairly large component of dumb%^$^%$ in there as well.
Guns don’t kill. Bullets do.
Let them keep their guns and get rid of the ammo.
^ I’m all for that. The least they could do is tax the crap out of it. Unfortunately the gun nutters will scream it’s an infringement on their right to guns to have to pay too much for amno.
That is s kind of fascinating idea… the second amendment talks about guns, but not ammo.
Interesting article I read this evening:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/10/05/how-one-evangelical-activist-changed-his-mind-on-gun-violence/
Right, Fang… I completely overlooked that Marvin wouldn’t have had a clue, 20 years ago, that the day would come when spin climbed up alongside stats as scientific rebuttal. Back then, theory was just that.
Wouldn’t dream of moving where we’re going without some kind of heat, intparent - no bubble of upper-class neighbors to shmooze me into believing we’ll talk the two-legged critters out of whatever they’ve taken the trouble to drive in a half-mile drive for. Continued good luck to those who continue to live the dream.
For al those who have an inordinate fear of guns, Maine is the latest state you should avoid. All those bubba, redneck, gun nut people standing in line at Starbucks cannot be a good thing.
My prediction is crime in Maine will not go up, might even go down a tad, as criminals and people intent on doing harm were already carrying without a permit. Therefore, there will be no increase in people willing to use a gun criminally. However, there could be an increase in the number of people who can effectively defend themselves and others in case of an attack.
The other constitutional carry states you should avoid as well are Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Vermont and Wyoming (WY is for residents only).