Guns used for lawful self-defense Pt. 5

[Seth]

Quoting NRA reports, and the utterances of Lott and Kleck is not very convincing.

It's not the NRA you dunce, it's the NRC, or National Research Council, and the Institute of Medicine which are part of the National Academies of Science.

The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council are private, nonprofit institutions that provide expert advice on some of the most pressing challenges facing the nation and the world. Our work helps shape sound policies, inform public opinion, and advance the pursuit of science, engineering, and medicine.

For those not familiar with the work of Dr. Arthur Kellerman, let me paraphrase. He is a medical specialist and researcher, who deals with emergency medicine, both in clinical work, and in research. He devbeloped a major concern about guns due to his hands on experience treating gunshot wounds. He soon realised that this was not a minor problem, but an epidemic. His research came up with an initial, and exaggerated figure for increased risk of 43 fold (which you will note I have never quoted), but he has since reviewed his work, and now quotes a 3 fold increase in risk of being shot if you have a gun in the home, compared to not owning one.

Right, he's a single anti-gun zealot whose work has been long debunked and now dismissed again by the NRC.

Naturally, his work has been severely attacked by the NRA, and by its allies, like Lott and Kleck. Seth, as a person who assiduously collects NRA propaganda, has access to all the shit written against Kellerman, who remains a well respected researcher, who is regarded with regard and respect by researchers and academics in his field.

Anybody who cares to peruse the internet for a while can find plenty of information on the Kellerman debunking.

Kellerman's publication written up in the New England Journal of Medicine was not the initial exaggerated estimate, but a later and more accurate assessment after further work.

You mean after his peers laughed at him and he had to eat crow for a couple of years...three to be exact...trying to get his data to fit his predetermined conclusion. But as the GunCite information demonstrates, as does my analysis, he's been full of shit all along, and now nothing less than the National Academies of Science, one of the most respected research institutes on the planet, has dismissed his work.

You just can't stand it that Obama's own little war on guns backfired squarely in his face because the NRC happens to be a prestigious and long-honored institution chartered by Abraham Lincoln in 1863 that's not interested in being his Progressive Socialist lackey, but is interested in actual facts, as quoted, "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 per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010)." That "BJS" is the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics.

To meet the government's urgent need for an independent adviser on scientific matters, President Lincoln signed a congressional charter forming the National Academy of Sciences in 1863 to "investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science." As science began to play an ever-increasing role in national priorities and public life, the National Academy of Sciences eventually expanded to include the National Research Council in 1916, the National Academy of Engineering in 1964, and the Institute of Medicine in 1970.

Source

You lose.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

I did not mistake the NRC for the NRA.
The NRC publishes honest findings, which criticised Kellerman's early error. However, the NRA cherry picks the publications of such as the NRC (and any other writings it can use) and re-publishes only that which can support its own murderous agenda, and does it out of context, and without admitting changes in the data after the piece it cherry picks was published.

Kellerman admitted his error, and the piece I quote came from the New England Journal of Medicine, which is one of the top ten medical journals in the world. It does not publish anything without detailed peer review, and elimination of garbage.

In Kellerman's favour, it is worth noting that he was honest enough to admit making an error, and doing more work to nail down the correct data. If we compare that to your hero, John Lott, the difference is massive. Lott published a figure for DGU's that was orders of magnitude higher than the more honest FBI figures,and which he has never retracted. His conclusion was clearly in error, but he has not the common decency or the academic honesty to say so.

[Seth]

To Seth

I did not mistake the NRC for the NRA.

Oh really?

The NRC publishes honest findings, which criticised Kellerman's early error.

Yeah, all of them. Which is why they didn't use his work in this latest review.

However, the NRA cherry picks the publications of such as the NRC (and any other writings it can use) and re-publishes only that which can support its own murderous agenda, and does it out of context, and without admitting changes in the data after the piece it cherry picks was published.

The NRA didn't publish those quotes, I did, and they came directly from the NRC report. You got a problem with that, take it up with the NRC.

Kellerman admitted his error, and the piece I quote came from the New England Journal of Medicine, which is one of the top ten medical journals in the world.

But he didn't withdraw his paper after those egregious and obviously biased errors, he spent years trying to stuff the rabbit back into the hat, unsuccessfully.

It does not publish anything without detailed peer review, and elimination of garbage.

Except it did.

In Kellerman's favour, it is worth noting that he was honest enough to admit making an error, and doing more work to nail down the correct data. If we compare that to your hero, John Lott, the difference is massive. Lott published a figure for DGU's that was orders of magnitude higher than the more honest FBI figures,and which he has never retracted. His conclusion was clearly in error, but he has not the common decency or the academic honesty to say so.

Funny how the brand-spanking new report from the National Academies of Science cites Lott's work affirmatively while disposing of Kellerman's summarily isn't it? Lott's revised his work several times and each time the evidence just gets stronger and stronger in favor of law abiding people carrying guns. Remember the NRC said "nearly all" when referring to the more-than-John-Lott's-survey-alone aggregation of actual data on DGUs.

Your horse isn't even in the race anymore, it's long dead and has been scavanged for years and there's nothing left of it but crusty bones.

Give it up, you lose and the NRC proves it.

[Blind groper]

Seth

Kellerman's report in the NEJM is valid. Your criticisms refer to earlier work, and that is irrelevant in relation to the NEJM report. I have never quoted Kellerman's earlier work. Just the revised and now accepted later work.

Nor have you ever effectively countered my comment about the non gun owning people who cannot use guns in defense. If Lott is correct, and there are 2,500,000 DGU's each year, then there must be more than 5 million people who needed a gun, did not have one, and suffered the consequences. Yet, despite the enormous size of that number, there is absolutely zero evidence of that effect. Conclusion : the Lott idea of DGU's is bullshit, 100%.

On top of all that is the simple fact that only the USA out of all OECD nations has lots of hand guns in civilian hands, and only the USA out of that group has anything like the number of shootings and hand gun murders. 1 person in 3,000 on average in the USA, every year, gets a bullet through his or her anatomy. That is a foul and disgusting statistic, and is unique to the USA of all OECD nations.

You cannot sanely deny that widespread hand gun ownership leads to a massive increase in murder rate.

[Blind groper]

Seth

Kellerman's report in the NEJM is valid. Your criticisms refer to earlier work, and that is irrelevant in relation to the NEJM report. I have never quoted Kellerman's earlier work. Just the revised and now accepted later work.

Nor have you ever effectively countered my comment about the non gun owning people who cannot use guns in defense. If Lott is correct, and there are 2,500,000 DGU's each year, then there must be more than 5 million people who needed a gun, did not have one, and suffered the consequences. Yet, despite the enormous size of that number, there is absolutely zero evidence of that effect. Conclusion : the Lott idea of DGU's is bullshit, 100%.

On top of all that is the simple fact that only the USA out of all OECD nations has lots of hand guns in civilian hands, and only the USA out of that group has anything like the number of shootings and hand gun murders. 1 person in 3,000 on average in the USA, every year, gets a bullet through his or her anatomy. That is a foul and disgusting statistic, and is unique to the USA of all OECD nations.

You cannot sanely deny that widespread hand gun ownership leads to a massive increase in murder rate.

[Seth]

Seth

Kellerman's report in the NEJM is valid. Your criticisms refer to earlier work, and that is irrelevant in relation to the NEJM report. I have never quoted Kellerman's earlier work. Just the revised and now accepted later work.

You lose. NRC roundly ignored Kellerman.

Nor have you ever effectively countered my comment about the non gun owning people who cannot use guns in defense.

We call them "helpless victims."

If Lott is correct, and there are 2,500,000 DGU's each year, then there must be more than 5 million people who needed a gun, did not have one, and suffered the consequences.

No there doesn't. You just choose to assume that 2/3ds of the population don't have guns, which is likely wrong too, my guess is it's more like 45% who have guns and going up every year, and then you choose to assume that this putative 2/3rds of unarmed people are all going to be victimized at the same rate. In other words, you're drawing specious conclusions from faulty logic. You heard the NRC, "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 per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010)."

You keep forgetting that a DGU doesn't have to result in a shooting or even a discharge of the weapon, and that many crimes are prevented by the presence of a gun in the victim's hands, so those POTENTIAL crimes and the DGUs that stopped them probably aren't reported to the police. Also, the NRC says "in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms," and this does NOT include violent crimes committed without firearms, using other weapons or simply fists and feet. The NCVS says:

Marcus Berzofsky, RTI International, Chris Krebs, RTI International, Lynn Langton, BJS Statistician, Hope Smiley-McDonald, RTI International

August 9, 2012 NCJ 238536

Presents findings, for a five-year period from 2006 to 2010, on the characteristics of crime victimizations that went unreported to police, according to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey. The characteristics examined in this report include the type of crime, whether it involved a weapon or injury, the victim-offender relationship, and demographic characteristics of the victim. For each of the characteristics examined, the report also details victims' rationale for not reporting to the police, including beliefs that the police would not or could not help, that the crime was not important enough to report, or fear of reprisal or getting the offender into trouble. The report also examines trends from 1994 to 2010 in the types of crime not reported to the police and the reasons victimizations went unreported.

Highlights:

From 1994 to 2010, the percentage of serious violent crime—rape or sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault—that was not reported to police declined from 50% to 42%.
From 2006 to 2010, the highest percentages of unreported crime were among household theft (67%) and rape or sexual assault (65%) victimizations, while the lowest percentage was among motor vehicle theft (17%) victimizations.
From 2006 to 2010, a greater percentage of victimizations perpetrated by someone the victim knew well (62%) went unreported to police, compared to victimizations committed by a stranger (51%).

Michael Planty, Ph.D., Jennifer L. Truman, Ph.D.

October 17, 2012 NCJ 239437

Presents 2011 estimates of rates and levels of criminal victimization in the U.S. This bulletin includes violent victimization (rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault) and property victimization (burglary, motor vehicle theft, and property theft). It describes the annual change from 2010 and analyzes 10-year trends from 2002 through 2011. The bulletin includes estimates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and injury and use of weapons in violent victimization. It also describes the characteristics of victims. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) collects information on nonfatal crimes, reported and not reported to the police, against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. During 2011, about 79,800 households and 143,120 persons were interviewed for the NCVS.
In 2011, U.S. residents age 12 or older experienced an estimated 5.8 million violent victimizations and 17.1 million property victimizations.

Highlights:

The rate of violent victimization increased 17%, from 19.3 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older in 2010 to 22.5 in 2011.
Increases in the rates of violent victimizations for whites, Hispanics, younger persons, and males accounted for the majority of the increase in violent crime.
The rate of property crime increased 11%, from 125.4 per 1,000 households in 2010 to 138.7 in 2011.

So, we have a total of 22.9 million crimes in 2011. Each and every one of those crimes could be thwarted by an armed citizen, including property crimes like theft and burglary, and each of those incidents, reported or unreported, qualifies as a valid and successful DGU. Therefore, 2.5 million DGUs per year equals a little over 10 percent of all crimes that are thwarted or defended against using guns. That's hardly implausible at all.

Yet, despite the enormous size of that number, there is absolutely zero evidence of that effect. Conclusion : the Lott idea of DGU's is bullshit, 100%.

Except as we see from the actual data, it's you that's full of bullshit.

[Blind groper]

Seth
The only DGU stats with any credibility are those of the FBI, with 80, 000. And all they show is that 80,000 times a year, someone pulled a gun in response to a threat.

The vast majority of threats do not require a gun in response. As I have told you many times, I have been threatened 3 times and not needed a gun for any of them. My own estimate, based on what happens here in NZ where no one carries a gun, is that less than 1 in 100 threats requires a gun for the optimal response.

However, all those guns in the US lead to non optimal responses, and 1 in 3,000 people each year get shot. A seriously undesirable outcome.

To put this into perspective, note that in my country, where gun control is tight, each year only 1 in one million people get shot, and most of them not fatally. Lots of guns and lax gun control means 1 in 3,000 get shot each year. Tight gun control drops that to 1 in one million each year. To vote for lax gun control as you do, requires a serious level of total imbecility.

[Seth]

Seth
The only DGU stats with any credibility are those of the FBI, with 80, 000. And all they show is that 80,000 times a year, someone pulled a gun in response to a threat.

Oh, I think I'll go along with the NRS thanks.

The vast majority of threats do not require a gun in response.

You keep saying that like you have any idea at all about what you're talking about. You don't. It's perfectly obvious that you don't.

As I have told you many times, I have bben threatened 3 times and not needed a gun for any of them.

And there are nearly 3 million people each year in the US who do not have that experience. Your repeating of a compositional fallacy is getting quite tiresome.

My own estimate, based on what happens here in NZ where no one carries a gun, is that less than 1 in 100 threats requires a gun for the optimal response.

Clearly your own estimate is written in chocolate on the wall of your colon, which is where you had to look to find it. Time to pull your head out fella.

However, all those guns in the US lead to non optimal responses, and 1 in 3,000 people each year get shot. A serously undesirable outcome.

Depends on who gets shot and why.

[Blind groper]

Seth

The 80,000 ( not the bullshit number of 3 million) each year in the USA who, in your words, "do not have that experience" are simply people who happened to be carrying a gun and did not try any alternative. This does not mean there was no alternative. There are always many alternatives, though a lazy mind will not look for them.

[Seth]

Seth

The 80,000 ( not the bullshit number of 3 million) each year in the USA who, in your words, "do not have that experience" are simply people who happened to be carrying a gun and did not try any alternative. This does not mean there was no alternative. There are always many alternatives, though a lazy mind will not look for them.

Of course there are "alternatives," and anyone who wants to use an alternative is free to do so. The law does not REQUIRE one to use deadly force or stand your ground.

The point of SYG laws, which have been enacted in most states to REPLACE "retreat to the wall" statutes is that people aren't required to try "alternatives" when their lives are in danger because their safety is more important than the safety or life of their attacker and the delay and uncertainty imposed by RTTW statutes severely disadvantages the victim and makes him more likely to be harmed because of the built in hesitation in a situation that requires instant deadly force response.

Those laws were changed after due deliberation by the legislative bodies of those states that have done so, and I for one welcome the notion that I have a right to stand my ground against a criminal thug. I see it as bad public policy when the law facilitates the criminal by building in yet another stressor and decision that has to be made by the victim before engaging in effective self-defense.

You lose numbnuts, the NRC and the state legislatures say so.

[Blind groper]

Seth

As far as I am concerned, this discussion is about two situations and comparing them.

Situation 1 is where a bunch of incredibly moronic politicians permit their citizenry to buy and sell tools for committing murder without let or hindrance, or even requiring records to be kept. This is the situation in the USA where second hand sales of murder tools (hand guns) do not even require background checks.

The second situation is where the politicians are non corrupt and non stupid, and introduce sane and sensible gun laws, to prevent those tools for committing muurder being spread around the society.

Situation 1 results in 1 in 3000 people being shot each year, and 8,000 homicide plus 12,000 suicides each year with hand guns.

Situation 2 results in shootings of only 1 in a million each year, and very, very low levels of hand gun murders, and suicides each year.

There is no comparison. Situation 1 is massively undesirable. The data of shootings and killings cannot be denied.

[Jason]

In other news, I was just reading about the Scar 17. It's very impressive. The Canadian version would be restricted to 10 round magazines, but the reviewer was shooting 10 shot groups nearing one-half MOA at 100 yards and consistently sub-MOA. Very impressive for a relatively short rifle chambered for .308. Very nice designated marksman weapon, or defending your home from invaders at medium range.

[Seth]

Seth

As far as I am concerned, this discussion is about two situations and comparing them.

As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is about one thing: your mindless, irrational, illogical hatred and fear of handguns.

Situation 1 is where a bunch of incredibly moronic politicians permit their citizenry to buy and sell tools for committing murder without let or hindrance, or even requiring records to be kept. This is the situation in the USA where second hand sales of murder tools (hand guns) do not even require background checks.

Well, you should say the same thing about baseball bats, kitchen knives and boots, because they are all "tools for committing murder" to a much greater extent than handguns are.

And the reason we don't allow the government to track our private transactions (although in Colorado we now do) is because we understand that the threat to our safety and liberty posed by the government having accurate records of who owns what guns is far, far worse than any criminal threat they pose. This is because we know history and we know that the first thing tyrants always do is disarm the public, and they use the very records you insist upon to do so. It's happened here in both California and New Jersey by the way; Cops sent out with lists of dutifully-registered "assault weapons" to confiscate them when the laws were changed.

The second situation is where the politicians are non corrupt and non stupid, and introduce sane and sensible gun laws, to prevent those tools for committing muurder being spread around the society.

Yeah, keep all those murder tools strictly in the hands of the government. Worked great for Hitler...and every other tyrant in history.

Situation 1 results in 1 in 3000 people being shot each year, and 8,000 homicide plus 12,000 suicides each year with hand guns.

That's the price of liberty for the rest of us I'm afraid.

Situation 2 results in shootings of only 1 in a million each year, and very, very low levels of hand gun murders, and suicides each year.

...and then, all of a sudden and quite unexpectedly for the proletarian masses, it results in 100 million people being brutally murdered by various tyrannical despots and governments in the last 100 years alone, because the people have no tools of defense with which to resist government-run murder and genocide.

There is no comparison. Situation 1 is massively undesirable. The data of shootings and killings cannot be denied.

We disagree. Situation 2 is far, far worse by many orders of magnitude, and that data cannot be denied.

[Woodbutcher]

Fuck Seth, your paranoia is getting worse. I recommend digging your bunker deeper and obtaining two more guns and some nerve gas.

[Seth]

In other news, I was just reading about the Scar 17. It's very impressive. The Canadian version would be restricted to 10 round magazines, but the reviewer was shooting 10 shot groups nearing one-half MOA at 100 yards and consistently sub-MOA. Very impressive for a relatively short rifle chambered for .308. Very nice designated marksman weapon, or defending your home from invaders at medium range.

Meh. I've been shooting a SCAR-17 for some time now during night-vision demos and it's just so-so. It's reasonably accurate at 100 meters, but NOT consistently sub-MOA. Could just be that rifle, but I don't think so.

I prefer the AR-pattern LaRue OBR (Optimized Battle Rifle) in .308 which DOES shoot sub-MOA clear out to 1000 meters. I know, I've done it, consistently.

And the solution to the 10-round mag problems is to buy a shitload of mags and an ammo-carrier vest to hold them and fuck the government jack-boots.

And then pop down here and grab a hundred GI 30 round mags to salt away in the Zombie Apocalypse stash. If you ever need 'em, you won't be worrying about any stupid mag capacity restriction being enforced. Just remember the third "S" in "Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up".

The only problem with .308 as a home-defense weapon is that unless you live way out in the country with no neighbors over-penetration is a serious concern. You can find .308 frangible, but they are rare, much harder to find than .556 frangible, which are suitable for in-home defense.

That's what I keep in my FN-FS2000 and my Sig P556 that lives in the under-bed sock drawer.

It is nice to have a long-range rifle available and at the ready, because from time to time you might need to take someone out at distance. A good scope is also a good idea.

My philosophy is that if they are closer than 600 meters they are too damned close and it's past time to be doing some shooting.