What did this girl have that she needed?

[pErvinalia]

Glad to hear it. What's important however is that guns did not cause an increase in crime,

Yawn. For the nth time, you don't know that. All you know is that net crime went down while total guns and toothpaste went up.

That's all that's important to know. If total guns went up and net crime did not go up, there is no reason to further regulate guns.

Except for the reason I have already stated. And no, I'm not going to tell you again. I'm sick of banging my head against your brick wall.

Doesn't matter what you think, more guns, less crime, not that it matters at all, this issue not being a statistical matter.

You don't even know what I am talking about. I showed, using logic, how your pronouncement is bollocks.

[Seth]

You don't even know what I am talking about. I showed, using logic, how your pronouncement is bollocks.

Nobody ever knows what you're talking about rEv, you're consistently incoherent and unfocused.

[pErvinalia]

It's part of my cover to disguise that I'm a MARXISTST!!!!!!

[Seth]

It's part of my cover to disguise that I'm a MARXISTST!!!!!!

Well, a Marxist useful idiot anyway...

[Seth]

Researcher Reaffirms: At Least 760,000 Defensive Gun Uses a Year
Joe Raedle/Getty Images/AFP

by AWR Hawkins19 Feb 20150
On February 17 Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck responded to recent criticism of his past studies on defensive gun uses (DGUs) by showing why the criticism is wrong and why a minimum of 760,000 DGUs each year is still a viable claim.

For any uninitiated readers, Kleck’s work on DGUs entered into the public dialogue in 1993 with the publication of the National Self-Defense Survey (NSDS). He conducted this survey with his colleague Marc Gertz, finding a minimum of 760,000 DGUs annually.

He and Gertz then refuted criticism of these findings in 1997, 1998, and 2001.

On January 14, 2015, new criticisms against Kleck’s DGU findings were published Politico Magazine. The critics–investment counselors Evan DeFilippis and Devin Hughes–described “defensive gun ownership” as a “myth” and part of an “utterly false” scenario in which armed Americans actually believe they will use their guns to save lives instead of take them.

DeFlippis and Hughes then set about using arguments from 1997 to argue anew against Kleck’s work on DGUs.

On February 17 Politico Magazine published Kleck’s response to DeFlippis and Hughes; a response in which Kleck makes clear that he’s not only heard these same criticisms before but has also refuted them. He shows that DeFlippis and Hughes’ lack of training in survey methods is betrayed by the fact that “they believe that it’s perfectly plausible that surveys generate enormous over-estimates of crime-related experiences.”

In reality, Kleck explains that just the opposite is true–“survey respondents underreport crime victimization experiences.”

Kleck showed how this was especially evident in the work he did in the early 1990s where respondents who used a gun defensively not only had to admit using the gun but, in most cases, had to also admit a degree of criminal behavior inasmuch as they had the gun with them in a public place before concealed carry was as widespread as it is in 2015. In other words, a lawful use of a firearm was likely carried out by someone who possessed the firearm in a manner for which there was not legal sanction–therefore, even people who used a gun for self-defense rather than crime were likely to keep quiet about doing so.

Kleck then explained that he stands by the DGU estimates he and Gertz published and will continue to do until someone can present the one thing no critic of that work has presented to date: namely, “empirical evidence” to the contrary.

With that said, the estimated minimal number of times a gun is used for defensive purposes in the United States each year remains at 760,000.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

[Blind groper]

Asking a gun nutter (and there is 100 million of them in the USA) if he ever used a gun defensively, is like asking a 16 year old male if he has ever had sex. The answer will always be yes, regardless of the truth.

Such surveys are also nuts.

[Seth]

Asking a gun nutter (and there is 100 million of them in the USA) if he ever used a gun defensively, is like asking a 16 year old male if he has ever had sex. The answer will always be yes, regardless of the truth.

Such surveys are also nuts.

Your claim is entirely fictional, unsupported and irrational.

[Blind groper]

Simple logic, Seth.

If Kleck was right, and there were 750,000 DGU's each year, then certain things follow.

Since only 1 in 3 American households have a gun, then 2 in 3 Americans in trouble will have no gun to help them. In fact, the number will be a lot higher than that, since the 1 in 3 will likely only have their gun available half of the time, at most.

Logically then, if 750,000 people each year need a gun to protect themselves, then at least 2 million others will find themselves at some point in deep doodoo with no gun. Two million people suffer serious consequences (meaning death or major injury) due to not having a gun. Guess what, genius? There are no such serious consequences. They are simply a figment of your imagination. Therefore those 750,000 DGU's are so much bullshit.

So wy did Kleck come up with a bullshit number? Because he used a very, very fallible survey method. As I have said before, asking a gun nutter if he has ever used his gun defensively is like asking a randy 16 year old guy if he has ever had sex. Of course he will say yes. Whether the yes answer is true or not.

It is weird, Seth, that you dismiss the research results of the University of Chicago, which has been using a survey technique for over 40 years, but accept Kleck's survey result, even though he is one guy without the backing of an entire statistics department (which the University of Chicago has).

[Seth]

Simple logic, Seth.

If Kleck was right, and there were 750,000 DGU's each year, then certain things follow.

Since only 1 in 3 American households have a gun, then 2 in 3 Americans in trouble will have no gun to help them. In fact, the number will be a lot higher than that, since the 1 in 3 will likely only have their gun available half of the time, at most.

Your argument fails on the first false premise.

Logically then, if 750,000 people each year need a gun to protect themselves, then at least 2 million others will find themselves at some point in deep doodoo with no gun.

That's not how statistics work, dumbass.

Two million people suffer serious consequences (meaning death or major injury) due to not having a gun.

Strawman argument. By irrelevantly and mendaciously creating a strawman definition of "need" as you do, you move the goalposts and invalidate your argument on the second premise.

Guess what, genius? There are no such serious consequences.

Really? How many violent crimes are reported each year by the FBI?

They are simply a figment of your imagination. Therefore those 750,000 DGU's are so much bullshit.

You're not known for your mathematical or reasoning abilities, are you?

So wy did Kleck come up with a bullshit number? Because he used a very, very fallible survey method. As I have said before, asking a gun nutter if he has ever used his gun defensively is like asking a randy 16 year old guy if he has ever had sex. Of course he will say yes. Whether the yes answer is true or not.

You might win a prize if you can prove this, which you can't, which makes it pure speculation on your part and therefore of very limited interest.

It is weird, Seth, that you dismiss the research results of the University of Chicago, which has been using a survey technique for over 40 years, but accept Kleck's survey result, even though he is one guy without the backing of an entire statistics department (which the University of Chicago has).

The "entire statistics department" of the University of Chicago did not participate in the studies you cite. Nor have you shown in any way that Kleck's numbers or methodology are incorrect, whereas Kleck and Lott, et al have repeatedly shown how your pet hoplophobes are wrong.

[Hermit]

asking a gun nutter if he has ever used his gun defensively is like asking a randy 16 year old guy if he has ever had sex. Of course he will say yes. Whether the yes answer is true or not.

A bit like asking a bloke if he is a good fighter. The Onion satirised that quite nicely.

[Collector1337]

But... but... I thought all of the people buying all the guns were just gun nuts adding to their collections and not actually new gun owners...

[Seth]

This is what an armed citizenry can do:

Mayor of Jerusalem Tackles Knife-Wielding Palestinian on His Way to Office — and It’s All on Video
Feb. 22, 2015 3:55pm Sharona Schwartz

A security camera in Jerusalem captured the moment Sunday when the mayor of the city, Nir Barkat, crossed paths with a knife-wielding Palestinian who reportedly had just attacked a Jewish man and was apparently looking for more victims.

The mayor, accompanied by his bodyguards near Jerusalem’s City Hall, lunged at the man the mayor called a “terrorist” and subdued him.

Israeli media reported that Barkat could be seen in this video wearing a white shirt and lunging at the reported stabber who was standing in the intersection.

“[W]hen I was on my way to the office for a meeting, while we were at the junction right next to City Hall, my driver and my team noticed something happening in the junction,” Barkat told reporters two hours later. “So, I got out of the car with my bodyguard, and we approached the scene and noticed a terrorist with a knife in his hand.”

Barkat explained that his bodyguard cocked his pistol, which apparently prompted the Palestinian attacker to drop his knife. That was when Barkat and his bodyguards subdued him.

“Without thinking, my bodyguard took out his weapon, and when he aimed at the terrorist, the terrorist dropped his knife and we immediately tackled him to the ground to make sure that he could not continue with the terror attack,” Barkat said according to the Jerusalem Post.

Another video showed a close-up view of Barkat and his bodyguards around the stabbing suspect who was on the ground.

Barkat then went to help the stabbing victim, an ultra-Orthodox man who was moderately wounded according to police.

“It’s clear to me that if the terrorist had continued stabbing, he would not be alive right now,” Barkat said. “But because he dropped the knife we overpowered the terrorist.”

The mayor’s bodyguard who drew his weapon, Asaf Na’amani, told Ynet, “The mayor and I jumped on him and wrestled him to the ground. In our world, there’s no such thing as hesitation — there’s only yes or no.”

Police later identified the attacker as a 19-year-old Palestinian who was in Israel without a permit.

A Jerusalem Post reporter observed: “Meanwhile, after the press conference concluded, one attendee expressed the sentiments seemingly shared by most of the journalists in the room. ‘I guess this makes him Super Mayor,’ he said.”

[JimC]

When you are a part of a fascist occupying force with an armed thug as a henchman, I guess you can do anything you like...

[Blind groper]

Also the fact that people who carry handguns for defense are more likely to have to defend themselves against another handgun. Which means they are as likely to be shot as the villain.

As I have told Seth repeatedly, if you put lots of handguns in the possession of so-called responsible citizens, then criminals will also end up with handguns. You cannot have one without the other.

But if you make damn sure that no one, criminal or citizen, can lay their hands on handguns, then you do not get people shot in the numbers you see in the USA. That is shown by the massively lower murder rates in the 23 out of 24 richest nations, excluding the USA.

[Seth]

Also the fact that people who carry handguns for defense are more likely to have to defend themselves against another handgun. Which means they are as likely to be shot as the villain.

As I have told Seth repeatedly, if you put lots of handguns in the possession of so-called responsible citizens, then criminals will also end up with handguns. You cannot have one without the other.

And you cannot have the other without the one. Criminals use all sorts of weapons to commit violent crime, so citizens need more effective weapons with which to defend themselves.

But if you make damn sure that no one, criminal or citizen, can lay their hands on handguns,

And that's the impossible utopian goal that hoplophobes keep trotting out as an idiotic response to crime. No nation on earth has been gun-free since the invention of the gun, nor will any nation ever be gun-free ever again. That Pandora's box has already been opened and there's no closing it.