This fucking scares me...

[Geebs]

Gun use in the United States: results from two national surveys. Hemenway D, Azrael D, Miller M.

Consistent with results from the NCVS and private one shot surveys,2 we find that far more respondents report criminal gun uses against them than self defense gun uses by them. The results hold even though, in order to be as conservative as possible, we (1) eliminate many of the reported hostile gun uses against the respondent, and (2) include virtually all the reported self defense gun uses.

Our surveys yield higher estimates of both criminal and self defense gun use than does the NCVS, probably due to telescoping and due to the fact that our respondents could report a gun use without first reporting that someone tried to commit a crime against them.8,11 These factors need not differentially affect the relative incidence of gun victimization versus self defense gun use, which we report here.

However, our results should not be extrapolated to obtain population based estimates of the absolute number of gun uses. If we have as little as 1% random misclassification, our results could be off by orders of magnitude. It appears we can obtain substantially higher rates of self defense gun use if we ask respondents about events in the previous six months rather than the previous five years.7 On the other hand, we can obtain substantially lower rates of self defense gun use if we eliminate the handful of respondents who report the vast majority of uses, the various respondents who report uses that do not appear to meet reasonable criteria for actual use, or the respondents whose use appears offensive rather than defensive.

While it is sometimes presumed that self defense gun use is beneficial for society, that notion has been viewed with increasing skepticism.10,11 It is noteworthy that in prison surveys, about half of convicted felons who have fired a gun claim to have done so in self defense.14

In our survey, the criminal court judges who rated the incidents determined that at least half were probably illegal—even after assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and carry a gun and described the incident honestly. We expect that the true percentage of reported self defense gun uses that are illegal is higher than 50% for at least two reasons.

First, three respondents reported over 58% of the self defense gun uses, and none of their accounts were read by the judges (since all refused to provide a description of the most recent event). Many reported self defense gun uses from a respondent creates a suspicion that the uses may be aggressive rather than defensive.

Second, the reports read by the judges are only one side of a hostile interaction that usually occurred months or years before the survey. We expect respondents will view the hostile encounter from their own perspective; in any mutual combat both participants may believe that the other side is the aggressor and that they themselves are acting in self defense. In addition, when describing the event, respondents will typically want to present themselves in the best possible light.15–20

Certainly some self defense gun uses are legal and in the public interest. But many are not. The possibility of using a gun in a socially useful manner—against a criminal during the commission of a crime—will rarely, if ever, occur for the average gun owner. By contrast, at any other moment, the use of a gun against another human is illegal, and socially undesirable. Regular citizens with guns, who are sometimes tired, angry, drunk or afraid, and who are not trained in dispute resolution or on when it is proper to use a firearm, have many opportunities for inappropriate gun use. People engage in innumerable annoying and somewhat hostile interactions with others in the course of a lifetime. We might expect that unlawful "self defense" gun uses will outnumber the legitimate and socially beneficial ones.

Trained police officers are often inadequately prepared to handle ambiguous but potentially dangerous situations. Heavy stress, confusion, and fear are inherent in most possible shooting situations. Heart rates skyrocket, and it is difficult to think clearly and to act deliberately. Not surprisingly, even the police make serious mistakes in their firearm use. Individuals without training or experience can be expected to do much worse.

Our findings have various limitations. Our results are based on self reports of past events, with the potential of recall bias. The surveys under-sampled poor people who may have more hostile conflicts with firearms than their richer counterparts. The key questions from the two surveys, though very similar, were not identical, and neither survey sampled anyone under age 18. In addition, we have detailed information only on the most recent self defense and criminal gun incidents; to the extent that the most recent incident is not typical of all the incidents experienced by the respondent, our findings may not be representative.

Only five judges, from three states, assessed the self defense gun incidents from the surveys; they were a convenience rather than a random sample, and the sample is too small to be confident of the stability of the aggregate ratings we report here.

Despite these limitations, our surveys provide evidence about gun uses in American society that has not been available before. Our results indicate that gun use against adults to threaten and intimidate is far more common than self defense gun use by them, and that most self reported self defense gun uses are probably illegal, and may be against the interests of society.

Interesting study in which they've tried to assess motivation for defensive gun use; also points out reasons for order-of-magnitude discrepancies in reported rates.

[Foo]

Look up entities like the Michigan militia before you shoot your pansy Brit mouth off.

Watch out Bush, here we come

[Nightshade]

You really are retarded, aren't you?

edit: btw http://www.fortliberty.org/militia/militia-groups.shtml

[Foo]

Yeah man. I'm the one throwing veiled insults in defence of his arguments, when everyone can see that I've been forced into that corner by the thinness of my arguments.

That's me!

[Foo]

before you shoot your pansy Brit mouth off.

that's what you fuckers thought back in 1776, too.

[busetibi]

you just need a big enough uprising to get noticed and hopefully some of the military to get onside.

bwahahahahahah


will NEVER happen

[Nightshade]

Yeah man. I'm the one throwing veiled insults in defence of his arguments, when everyone can see that I've been forced into that corner by the thinness of my arguments.

That's me!

No, you came into the thread and started making stupid comments with no bearing on the argument whatsoever. In light of that, go fuck yourself.

[Foo]

oh shit go fuck myself

[Geebs]

You really are retarded, aren't you?

edit: btw http://www.fortliberty.org/militia/militia-groups.shtml

Lol Nightshade, you really opened up a can of worms there:

Viper Reserves - All the Innocent Americans the Government Hasn't Thrown in Prison

California Militia 2000 - We have read the writing on the wall, and we have said no. We have read the writing and said "Hell no!" "Hell no, I'm not giving up my country," and "Hell no, I'm not giving up America," not to the socialists, and not to the United Nations, not without a fight!

California Militia - Our plan is simply to train and prepare for what is inevitable: the destruction of our society from it's own apathy and greed. Our strategy is simple. Prepare to rebuild America on the ashes of that destruction. If we can survive the initial turmoil and feed ourselves and our families until the chaos levels out, we can begin to rebuild.

The Indiana Militia Corps is redefining the mordern citizen militia with real missions and professional training. We are seeking volunteers to participate in Civil Defense, Homeland Security and Emergency Disaster Assistance programs across the state! Although currently we have members with prior military experience and special training, no military experience or special training is required of volunteers who wish to join. (WARNING: Not recommended due to anti-homosexual and anti-humanist policies.)

[Geebs]

BTW I note you still haven't responded to my smacking the crap out of your DGU argument.

[Nightshade]

I'm by no means stating that the militias in the US are a bunch of rocket scientists, nor am I standing up for their politics. I'm merely stating that there are a large number of heavily armed citizen militias in the US, so your can of worms statement is wholly without merit.

And I fail to see how that last survey synopsis 'smacked the crap out of my DGU argument'. There are a couple of glaring irregularities in the method they used to qualify the data they considered valid.

On the other hand, we can obtain substantially lower rates of self defense gun use if we eliminate the handful of respondents who report the vast majority of uses, the various respondents who report uses that do not appear to meet reasonable criteria for actual use, or the respondents whose use appears offensive rather than defensive.

Would you not agree that there is a good bit of opinion as opposed to black and white evaluation of facts there? What are the reasonable criteria? It's a bit hard to make unbiased assessments of these results without knowing more about the survey itself.
Also, this really bothers me:

First, three respondents reported over 58% of the self defense gun uses,

What the hell? THREE people reporting over 58% of the DGUs in the survey? YOU do the math on that and me that that's a valid sample size. Do you have a link to they surveys themselves?
Please don't tell me that you're relying on this highly suspect data to make the claim that you've 'smacked the crap out my argument'.

[Anthony clan dude]

listen Im english and my dad has a shed of automtics and semi automatics so no we aren't "faggy about guns" and no I don't trust the goverment having nukes. I still think that you should try to run away first but if you can't I don't agree with the "softies" who say try to shoot him in the leg I just shoot him in the head and hope his brains come out his mouth.
Oh btw Quake 3 rulz!

[shadd_]

you just need a big enough uprising to get noticed and hopefully some of the military to get onside.

bwahahahahahah


will NEVER happen

you laugh like i really give a fuck. maybe i would if i wasn't canadian.

[Foo]

Automatic weapons have been completely banned in the Uk since like the 30s.

[Geebs]

I'm by no means stating that the militias in the US are a bunch of rocket scientists, nor am I standing up for their politics. I'm merely stating that there are a large number of heavily armed citizen militias in the US, so your can of worms statement is wholly without merit.

And I fail to see how that last survey synopsis 'smacked the crap out of my DGU argument'. There are a couple of glaring irregularities in the method they used to qualify the data they considered valid.

On the other hand, we can obtain substantially lower rates of self defense gun use if we eliminate the handful of respondents who report the vast majority of uses, the various respondents who report uses that do not appear to meet reasonable criteria for actual use, or the respondents whose use appears offensive rather than defensive.

Would you not agree that there is a good bit of opinion as opposed to black and white evaluation of facts there? What are the reasonable criteria? It's a bit hard to make unbiased assessments of these results without knowing more about the survey itself.
Also, this really bothers me:

First, three respondents reported over 58% of the self defense gun uses,

What the hell? THREE people reporting over 58% of the DGUs in the survey? YOU do the math on that and me that that's a valid sample size. Do you have a link to they surveys themselves?
Please don't tell me that you're relying on this highly suspect data to make the claim that you've 'smacked the crap out my argument'.

The legality of the DGUs in question was being evaluated by judges, whose opinion probably counts as much as anyone's when it comes to deciding whether gun use was offensive or defensive, and legal in either situation.. But the other part is, they make very valid points about extrapolating from small studies to nationwide studies - i.e., small studies that claim to be more accurate representations than the (much larger) NVS should be treated with suspicion - which means your argument about removing the NVS as an "outlier" is looking pretty dodgy.

[reefsurfer]

we win :icon25:

[+JuggerNaut+]

listen Im english and my dad has a shed of automtics and semi automatics so no we aren't "faggy about guns" and no I don't trust the goverment having nukes. I still think that you should try to run away first but if you can't I don't agree with the "softies" who say try to shoot him in the leg I just shoot him in the head and hope his brains come out his mouth.
Oh btw Quake 3 rulz!

inbred.

[shadd_]

we win :icon25:

no, you don't. so many factors involved it's obviously overwhelming when you try take everything into account.

fuck you could argue back and forth with good and bad points forever.

[Ryoki]

we win :icon25:

We?
Fuck off, you haven't made a single coherent argument in this thread. Come to think of it, you never make arguments - just stupid broad generalisations that you then refuse to back up.

[+JuggerNaut+]

told

[Nightshade]

I'm by no means stating that the militias in the US are a bunch of rocket scientists, nor am I standing up for their politics. I'm merely stating that there are a large number of heavily armed citizen militias in the US, so your can of worms statement is wholly without merit.

And I fail to see how that last survey synopsis 'smacked the crap out of my DGU argument'. There are a couple of glaring irregularities in the method they used to qualify the data they considered valid.

On the other hand, we can obtain substantially lower rates of self defense gun use if we eliminate the handful of respondents who report the vast majority of uses, the various respondents who report uses that do not appear to meet reasonable criteria for actual use, or the respondents whose use appears offensive rather than defensive.

Would you not agree that there is a good bit of opinion as opposed to black and white evaluation of facts there? What are the reasonable criteria? It's a bit hard to make unbiased assessments of these results without knowing more about the survey itself.
Also, this really bothers me:

First, three respondents reported over 58% of the self defense gun uses,

What the hell? THREE people reporting over 58% of the DGUs in the survey? YOU do the math on that and me that that's a valid sample size. Do you have a link to they surveys themselves?
Please don't tell me that you're relying on this highly suspect data to make the claim that you've 'smacked the crap out my argument'.

The legality of the DGUs in question was being evaluated by judges, whose opinion probably counts as much as anyone's when it comes to deciding whether gun use was offensive or defensive, and legal in either situation.. But the other part is, they make very valid points about extrapolating from small studies to nationwide studies - i.e., small studies that claim to be more accurate representations than the (much larger) NVS should be treated with suspicion - which means your argument about removing the NVS as an "outlier" is looking pretty dodgy.

I agree about judges being good evaluators of cases of gun use, but what were they looking at? What specific information did they have? Bill Frist is a doctor, but do you think that his evaluation of Terry Schiavo's condition from a videotape was valid?
Would you care to address the other points in my post you just quoted?

[reefsurfer]

We?
Fuck off, you haven't made a single coherent argument in this thread. Come to think of it, you never make arguments - just stupid broad generalisations that you then refuse to back up.

I'm sorry? I dident hear you, please remove that cock out of your mouth before you speak.

[tnf]

He hit the nail on the head, cock in his mouth or not.

[Nightshade]

We?
Fuck off, you haven't made a single coherent argument in this thread. Come to think of it, you never make arguments - just stupid broad generalisations that you then refuse to back up.

I'm sorry? I dident hear you, please remove that cock out of your mouth before you speak.

Pull your head out of your ass and your hearing might improve.

[Geebs]

I'm by no means stating that the militias in the US are a bunch of rocket scientists, nor am I standing up for their politics. I'm merely stating that there are a large number of heavily armed citizen militias in the US, so your can of worms statement is wholly without merit.

And I fail to see how that last survey synopsis 'smacked the crap out of my DGU argument'. There are a couple of glaring irregularities in the method they used to qualify the data they considered valid.
Would you not agree that there is a good bit of opinion as opposed to black and white evaluation of facts there? What are the reasonable criteria? It's a bit hard to make unbiased assessments of these results without knowing more about the survey itself.
Also, this really bothers me: What the hell? THREE people reporting over 58% of the DGUs in the survey? YOU do the math on that and me that that's a valid sample size. Do you have a link to they surveys themselves?
Please don't tell me that you're relying on this highly suspect data to make the claim that you've 'smacked the crap out my argument'.

The legality of the DGUs in question was being evaluated by judges, whose opinion probably counts as much as anyone's when it comes to deciding whether gun use was offensive or defensive, and legal in either situation.. But the other part is, they make very valid points about extrapolating from small studies to nationwide studies - i.e., small studies that claim to be more accurate representations than the (much larger) NVS should be treated with suspicion - which means your argument about removing the NVS as an "outlier" is looking pretty dodgy.

I agree about judges being good evaluators of cases of gun use, but what were they looking at? What specific information did they have? Bill Frist is a doctor, but do you think that his evaluation of Terry Schiavo's condition from a videotape was valid?
Would you care to address the other points in my post you just quoted?

Individuals reporting wildly improbable gun use seems to be a feature of most of the small sample size (order of 10E3) studies. The authors of that study are pretty honest about what it does to their figures; but it's noteworthy that they point out that the difference depending on the number of loons you include (and how did they get their hands on firearms anyway? *gulp*) is orders of magnitude; which is why the victimization study's figures may be more accurate than the NRA's. It's pertinent to the original point of this thread, which is the need to (as I interpret the legalese) be seen to have attempted to avoid conflict before using potentially deadly force, especially as judicial opinion seems to be that, a lot of the time, people are doing so illegally.

The "can of worms" thing was just that I was expecting the usual right wing loony gags to come out given that that seems to be what most of the militias are (we have the same thing in the UK: it's called the BNP).

To be honest, though, from going through the figures it's looking more and more like the gun suicide rate is a good reason for preventing people from storing guns in their own house :icon32: