Shall we, then, draw a line through the FBI, as it seems they don't actually collect data that supports your argument or mine?
The DOJ uses FBI data to arrive at a figure of 80k-100k defensive uses per year, but they're going only on instances where police were involved, so that's severely under-reported. The NRA uses FBI data to get a figure of half a million uses, but they don't explain how they get to that number (despite a half dozen requests from me for that information), so I discount it by half.
One thing the FBI does report is that around two thousand defensive handgun uses per year result in the death of the intruder.
You mentioned the NHI as supporting your argument, not me. Now it's clear they do not support your argument, you seem to have lost faith in them...?
I have no faith in
that study.
I have scoured
the NSC site and can't find any evidence that they conduct their own studies. It seems they are more of a "gateway" type of agency, who compile data and distribute it accordingly, with their own analysis and recommendations. I'd appreciate specifics about gun use by victims of crime if you can provide them.
The National Self-Defense Survey arrived at a figure of 2.5 million defensive uses per year -- that's often cited by Gary Kleck. The Police Foundation did a study in the mid-1990s that found 2.7 million defensive uses. There are numerous others. At the low end of these actual surveys is the National Crime Victimization Survey, which counts about 120,000 uses a year (though its methodology is heavily criticized).
Interestingly among all that comes the figure that less than ten percent of defensive uses actually involved firing a gun, and less than half of those involved anyone at all being wounded (so the claim that the most likely outcome of using a gun to defend yourself is being harmed is ridiculous; the most likely outcome is that the bad guy runs away). There's also the interesting result that in a substantial minority of cases, the defender didn't even have the gun loaded (a figure hard to pin down because of the aversion to admitting such a thing).
One thing their site led me discover was that there are numerous studies that have found that gun education programs for children, such as the NRA's Eddie Eagle program, are complete failures. In studies like
this one in Florida, children's behaviour is consistently unchanged before and after gun education classes. Around half of all kids will play with a gun they find, regardless of whether they've been taught not to.
That's interesting. Maybe I'll ask the guys at NRA HQ about that -- I hesitate because I suspect I'll just get told that the Eddie Eagle program got the national safety award....
You're shooting the messenger. Every agency that attempts to scientifically analyse gun deaths in the US is stopped, and the stoppage has undeniable ties to NRA lobbying/funding.
Damn La Pierre -- I did some tracking and found they're blocking NIH studies... through the bastard Greg Walden from my state.
One more reason to have a program to arm teachers and require the NRA to do it at their cost.
Lott is a self confessed liar, who almost certainly fabricated the data in his gun studies. I've talked about this
in previous posts so won't rehash it here. But how do you equate his well-documented ethical and professional failings with Professor Kellerman? Please justify your criticism with some citations.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...cgjxoEyPYiTCMdY0Pl59g&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.cGE
One large problem with Kellerman's conclusions is that if you apply the same methodology to self-defense in the home without a firearm, a person is over three times as likely to be killed by the attacker if the defender doesn't have a firearm. He ignores this because it doesn't fit his agenda. He also ignores the fact that the point of self-defense in the home isn't to kill someone, it's to stop the threat. So he's really studying irrelevant figures with flawed methodology.
I'm sorry you don't agree, but the facts are undeniable. The CDC were forced to stop studying gun deaths by Republican lawmakers who accepted contributions from the NRA. The NIH has studied guns, and is now being prevented from doing so thanks to NRA-supported Republican lawmakers Rep. Joe L. Barton of Texas, and Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon.
The CDC could have actually continued to study gun issues of they'd just published the raw data. I know it goes against a researcher's grain to not publish conclusions, but since raw data cannot be construed as political, it would have passed the muster of the law. From a half-hour survey online, I think Walden and Barton just copied the language from the CDC restriction, so the same should apply there.
I don't understand why one of the billionaire Democrats who support gun control don't just write a check to pay for a university study or two -- the NRA gets their studies done that way, and it's just puzzling why others don't.
Though my approach would be to put funding for a long-term study in a bill "For the governing of the militia", to see what level of effectiveness and preparedness our militia actually has. The militia is supposed to be the backbone of our defense, so it behooves us as a nation to know just where we stand, so we can then provide for (Art 1 Sec 8) discipline of the militia. For fun, both George Washington and John Adams could be cited in such legislation as encouraging knowing how prepared the militia is.
And that's the only way the situation is going to be "well-regulated" (to misuse a phrase): it has got to be done starting with the fact that "the whole people" are the militia, and then using Congress' authority to "govern and discipline".
This is a GIANT non-answer that fails to address ANY of the points raised in andy's great post. I am so disappointed right now... I expected at least more "but in my imaginary world..." arguments. Instead, you are pulling a Henry and just swipe the whole post under the rug...
