National Rifle Association (NRA) Continues to Feed Its Readers Demonstrable Lies and Distortions

Thoroughly debunked years ago, the gun lobby’s favorite research – a 1995 study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz that reported an astounding 2.5 million defense gun uses (DGU) each year in the United States. Yep, you read it right; 2.5 million DGUs PER YEAR!

The Kleck study claims that 2.5 million times per year, someone uses a gun to defend themselves. That’s more defensive gun uses than happened in WWII in Europe in 1944.  The Kleck study is so flawed the only thing it measures is the wild imagination of gun owners.

As recently as this month, the NRA referenced Kleck’s deeply flawed and thoroughly refuted study AGAIN in their  magazine, America’s 1st Freedom.

Bucky2Gun4250With the help of liars like Alan Korwin and others, the NRA continues to feed its readers demonstrable lies and distortions.

Here, for your reference, is a short list of the many peer reviewed, refereed, academic articles published that clearly refute Kleck’s astronomical claim.*

The ultimate proof the Kleck claim is bullshit, is the fact that despite spending 35 million dollars/year to deceive the public and threaten politicians, in fourteen years since the study, the gun lobby has funded numerous FAILED attempts to repeat Kleck’s study.

*It should be noted that Gary Kleck has refused to defend his study ever since it was published.

Note to readers: OneUtah is a leading publisher of accurate, trustworthy, legal and scientific information about gun rights, guns, violence, gun violence and the psychology of CCP holders. Read more about guns and meet the gun lobby.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  1. #1 by mikeb302000 on November 2, 2009 - 6:15 am

    You’re absolutely right, Cliff. Even many of the pro-gun folks I know don’t mention this one. Others do, and repeat it like a mantra hoping to increase its credibility.

  2. #2 by Bob S. on November 2, 2009 - 7:40 am

    Cliff,

    Readership getting low at OneUtah again?

    I’ve wondered about the pattern of your posting anti-firearm screeds.

    Do you only post anti-rights screeds about firearms when you stats drop off?

    Or do you post when aren’t getting enough attention?

    And of course, I can’t forget to mention one of your biggest fans: MikeB302000 liar, lying criminal or criminal.

    I’ll give you credit for one thing, you aren’t even trying to hide your bias or that of the groups you support.

    Really, Berkeley Media Studies Group as a reference?

    From their webpage

    Media Advocacy Planning

    Organizations that want to change policy or influence decision-makers enlist BMSG to help them develop a media advocacy plan, a message strategy, and an access strategy for becoming part of the public debate in the news media.

    I like this section, it is extremely apt I think

    Case Studies

    BMSG has been commissioned to tell stories of how local groups apply media advocacy to change policy.

    And about that study?
    Aren’t you the one deriding anything not peer reviewed?

    Prepared for the “Strengthening the Public Health Debate on Handguns, Crime, and Safety” meeting,
    October 14 & 15, 1999, Chicago, IL, with support from the Joyce Foundation

    Doesn’t appear to be peer reviewed does it? It looks like was brought and paid for by the anti-freedom Joyce Foundation

  3. #3 by Is it getting warm in here? on November 2, 2009 - 8:40 am

    “Demon strable” said digby, pointing at the waxen scatter, “sure fire sign of vampires, the dead giveaway is the reader distortion”. The needle flickered anxiously on the NRA gauge, the result 2.5 million parts per year.

    “That thing must be lying, because from the depth of the bat shit, there would appear to be more of a concentration than this”. “Bat’s shit and vampires always a sign of each other I always say”, commented one of the readers attending digby.

    “It’s why when chasing ghosts I always bring my .45, never know when you need to make another ghost”. digby cast his disapproving eye on the fellow, as if to warn him, that there was only one boss on this caboose. The hunt continued, they had to be in here somewhere.

  4. #4 by Cliff Lyon on November 2, 2009 - 8:49 am

    Ok Bob S,

    Lets use your standard. I listed 5 peer reviewed analysis. You listed how many that support Kleck?

    Zero.

    Is that what you consider winning an argument?

    Answer this: If Kleck’s numbers are even close to real, why has no one, NOT ONE, not even a biased pro-gun funded group even ATTEMPT to reproduce the Kleck study.

    You DO realize, that would put this discussion to bed?

    NOT ONE Bob S! NOT EVEN ONE!

  5. #5 by Bob S. on November 2, 2009 - 9:18 am

    Given the nature of your response, I would say that readership stats are down.

    You’ve been over this before Cliff. Multiple times.

    Interesting how you don’t address that.

    How far off has readership fallen since the last time you’ve started a gun control thread?

  6. #6 by Cliff Lyon on November 2, 2009 - 9:51 am

    Do you want to see the stats Bob? I’ve posted them many times.

    I can assure you, the gun discussion probably drives more people away than it attracts.

  7. #7 by Bob S. on November 2, 2009 - 10:17 am

    Cliff,

    Sure, let’s see the stats.

    I like your qualifier in there. Do you break down stats by author, by post?

    I don’t doubt you get traffic. My wondering just has to do with your personality and you personally.

    Are you just trying to attract attention, get the pro-rights blogs talking and linking to your attempts to restrict our rights?

    Maybe if you hold your breathe until we talk about you or stomp your feet in the middle of some retail establishment we’ll give you want you want: attention. Is that why you do it?

    And as far as a peer reviewed study supporting Kleck and Gertz, How about this one sponsored by the Clinton administration?

    Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF
    respondents (0.8 percent of the sample),
    representing 1.5 million defensive users. This
    estimate is directly comparable to the well-known
    estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last
    column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the
    difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF
    respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million
    DGUs.

    Some troubling comparisons. If the DGU numbers are
    in the right ballpark, millions of attempted
    assaults, thefts, and break-ins were foiled by
    armed citizens during the 12-month period.
    According to these results, guns are used far more
    often to defend against crime than to perpetrate
    crime. (Firearms were used by perpetrators in 1.07
    million incidents of violent crime in 1994,
    according to NCVS data.)

  8. #8 by Richard Warnick on November 2, 2009 - 10:22 am

    I don’t know where Cliff is getting his World War II info, but it’s an interesting subject. S.L.A. Marshall’s famous assertion that only 15 percent of American riflemen fired their weapons in combat in WW II wasn’t based on real research. The truth is complicated, but mainly comes down to the fact that in a given battle a lot of soldiers didn’t come into contact with the enemy.

    “In a divisional assault—one by the book—one regiment is kept in reserve, two are committed in the attack. In each of the attacking regiments, one battalion is in reserve; in each battalion, one company is in reserve, and in each of the two assaulting companies one platoon is in reserve. Assuming rifle-company combat strength of 125 men, you come up with 1,500 men moving forward against the enemy out of a division of 13,000 men. That makes a possible 11,500 men in a day’s action who didn’t fire—because they would have had no occasion to.”

    There are 226 million adult Americans, including 6.7 million in prison, on parole or probation. Some 30 percent own firearms, and 67 percent of gun owners cite protection against crime as a reason. That gives us 44 million people who have armed themselves against crime.

    In our hypothetical World War II battle, 11.5 percent of infantrymen may have encountered an opportunity to fire their personal weapons. Even if you count all three million Allied soldiers on the Western Front as riflemen, that’s at most 345,000 who saw the enemy. If you take 11.5 percent of our 44 million would-be crime fighters, that translates into 5 million opportunities to use a gun in self-defense– under WW II battlefield conditions.

    So, the battle between armed private individuals and criminals in America today rages at 15 times the intensity of World War II?

  9. #9 by James farmer on November 2, 2009 - 11:11 am

    Are you just trying to attract attention, get the pro-rights blogs talking and linking to your attempts to restrict our rights?

    Bob:

    Per usual, you incite the argument with NRA-type rhetoric. We all agree that some restrictions are required on gun ownership; our modern society demands such be the case. Thus, your point above would be more well taken had you referred to “attempts to reasonably restrict” rather than the far more onerous posture “attempts to restrict.” Sorry, but like it or not, your so-called “rights” will be restricted; the question is, however, where to draw the line of “reasonable.”

  10. #10 by Bob S. on November 2, 2009 - 11:27 am

    James,

    First, I don’t agree that the proposals and ideas floated here by you, Cliff and others are reasonable.

    So, why would I want to dignify those unreasonable restrictions with that phrase?

    You are right about where to draw the law of “reasonable”.

    Isn’t reasonable to ask for evidence? To have the further restrictions of our rights proposed show some evidence, some shred of factual basis in reducing crime ?

    The social utility theory is great but at what point do gun control advocates like you stop?

    If one new law reduced the approximate 250,000 deaths and injuries by 25%, would you stop there?

    Would the other gun control advocates?

    How about if another law reduced that approximately 187,500 deaths and injuries by another 25%, would you or the other advocates stop?

    Now, with just two hypothetical laws deaths and injuries would be down nearly 44$…..how much more would you want to restrict my rights?

    See that is the problem with social utility theory, that will continue to restrict our rights forever. Always claiming they are just trying to ‘save lives’.
    And still people like you and Cliff would claim each new law needed would be reasonable, right?

    Cliff is on the record as wanting to ban all handguns and heavily regulate rifles and shotguns…when would he stop?

    All the while, ignoring the lives saved by the defensive use of firearms.

    While claiming to push for laws to save lives, how many lives would be lost because more people wouldn’t be able to defend themselves?

    How many more rapes would happen because it was “reasonable” to restrict handgun ownership like Chicago does?

    How many more home invasions and the deaths or injuries from them would happen because the police never got around to approving someone’s application to purchase a firearm (Illinois requires approval simply to purchase a firearm)?

    Do you have any evidence to show that criminals would simply stop committing crimes because it was more expensive for them to buy a firearm?
    Or would they just switch to another tool or just gang up on people?

    I see nothing reasonable at all in any of the suggestions in additional gun control laws.

  11. #11 by Cliff Lyon on November 2, 2009 - 2:32 pm

    Bob S,

    I think you are getting stuck on the fear of having your own rights restricted.

    Thats a big problem. If the gun rights crowd is unwilling to engage in a discussion of policies that restrict your gun rights, then I don’t see much reason to have the discussion with you.

    Its like discussing health care reform with Republicans. Its a waste of time.

    So from here, it looks like the solutions will not be ones that are negotiated with the gun lobby, but in spite of the gun lobby.

    Its hard to accept the idea that the founding fathers meant for 2a to become such a pervasive, sacrosanct individual right that it would virtually trump the rights of society to pursue more peaceful, safer communities.

    You guys have been very clear about your solution, that everyone arm up and get trained.

    That idea is of course so utterly insane, you must understand why no one, except other gun freaks, will take you seriously.

  12. #12 by Cliff Lyon on November 2, 2009 - 2:39 pm

    Richard, I just pre-supposed that 2.5m defensive gun uses was more than most any year in WWII.

    The point is that the 2.5million/year number, if true conjures up a society as violent as one at war on their own soil.

    In other words, if someone told you that people in some big country used guns 2.5 million times/year to defend themselves, one would assume that one were describing intense, conventional land-based war, with battles, sniping, rioting, rampaging, gang-raping, and full on daylight pillaging.

    have you noticed that Bob and friends refuse to answer the big elephant question….if Klecks numbers were even close to reality, the NRA would have kicked in some funding to reproduce the study.

  13. #13 by Bob S. on November 2, 2009 - 3:00 pm

    Cliff,

    We try to discuss it and come to a compromise.

    We’ve asked, many many times, if we agree to another law; which law that restricts our rights are you willing to see repealed.

    The answer is always the same. You don’t want a single law restricting our rights taken off the books. Yet you want more and more laws in place.

    In what altered state of reality does that define “compromise”?

    So from here, it looks like the solutions will not be ones that are negotiated with the gun lobby, but in spite of the gun lobby.

    Solutions???

    Solution to what Cliff?
    Nothing you’ve suggested will stop crime. Nothing you’ve suggested has even been shown to be effective at reducing crime.

    From the CDC:

    During 2000–2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, “shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)

    Let’s repeat that again for the folks who just don’t get it.

    The CDC looked at the following laws:
    bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, “shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws.

    And found what???

    The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.

    Insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness — of the laws you propose as solutions!!

    Surely if the “solutions” were anything of the sort, the CDC would be able to find some evidence some where that they actually worked, right?

    You guys have been very clear about your solution, that everyone arm up and get trained.

    Then you go and show your true gun control stripes by simply lying. (at least you are in good company, right MikeB302000?)

    We don’t propose that everyone arm up, we propose that people like you stop interfering with their right to do so.

    We, unlike you, aren’t out to make people do what they don’t want to. We want to give them the freedom to decide and to act on that decision.

    And to be able to act on that decision without having to jump through hurdles that create financial, administrative or legal barriers to their right to protect themselves.

    Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you really just have a problem reading?

    I cited a study that supported Kleck and Gertz’s numbers and provided the citation. ON this post and another.

    Bob S. :
    Cliff,

    And as far as a peer reviewed study supporting Kleck and Gertz, How about this one sponsored by the Clinton administration?
    Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF
    respondents (0.8 percent of the sample),
    representing 1.5 million defensive users. This
    estimate is directly comparable to the well-known
    estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last
    column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the
    difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF
    respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million
    DGUs.
    Some troubling comparisons. If the DGU numbers are
    in the right ballpark, millions of attempted
    assaults, thefts, and break-ins were foiled by
    armed citizens during the 12-month period.
    According to these results, guns are used far more
    often to defend against crime than to perpetrate
    crime. (Firearms were used by perpetrators in 1.07
    million incidents of violent crime in 1994,
    according to NCVS data.)

  14. #14 by James farmer on November 2, 2009 - 3:18 pm

    Bob S.:

    For completeness, let’s reiterate the parenthetical following the CDC study:

    (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)

    Not sure why that part got left out of your follow on discussion re the Task Force findings. Indeed, at best, the parenthetical relegates the results of the study to an equipoise draw (no pun intended).

  15. #15 by Bob S. on November 2, 2009 - 3:41 pm

    James,

    Again, shouldn’t in this case the tie go to liberty?

    Insufficient evidence is clearly not proof that the laws work.

    If you advocate greater and greater restrictions on our freedoms, shouldn’t the burden of proof be on you?

  16. #16 by jdberger on November 2, 2009 - 3:43 pm

    Cliff,

    You recieved a number of links to peer reviewed studies when you privately emailed Dave Hardy, myself and Alan Korwin.

    Doncha remember?

    This was the email where you mused about “putting a bullet” in Korwin’s head.

    Shame shame, Cliffy.

    How’s the anger management thing coming? Smack any smart-ass kids lately?

  17. #17 by cav on November 2, 2009 - 3:54 pm

    I would add that it is not only in the area of gun ownership that freedoms are being restricted. It’s just that guns are so easy to descriminate against, and the color of ones skin is sooo yesterday.

    Affordable, quality food, water, air and energy are gettin to be premiums only the uber wealthy will be affording before long.

  18. #18 by James farmer on November 2, 2009 - 5:18 pm

    Bob:

    Cav raises an interesting point that has been mentioned but tangentially in the past. Your entire argument depends on the assumption that the 2nd Amend provides unrestricted access to purchase and carry guns. Regardless, if the restriction at issue passes muster under strict-scrutiny (assuming a lesser standard does not apply), then your rights have not been violated per the Constitution – restricted, maybe, but certainly not violated. Again, it all boils down to whose ox is being gored and how badly. My ox is doing fine!

  19. #19 by Cliff Lyon on November 2, 2009 - 6:43 pm

    JD Berger,

    If you guys emailed me links to any peer reviewed analysis of Kleck, I missed them.

    I enthusiastically encourage you to post them here in a comment.

    I do vaguely recall several website entries that someone once claimed to validate Klecks study, but as I recall they were not published studies, but rather smart-ass sounding pro-gun rights types claiming some imaginary authority.

  20. #20 by james farmer on November 2, 2009 - 8:27 pm

    jd:

    Good to hear from you again; best to you and yours.

    As you will certainly recognize, my commentary and willingness to concede points is lost on your colleagues these days; excepting, from time to time, the thoughtful commentary of Bob S. Perhaps the two of us can bring a modicum of rationality back to the debate?

  21. #21 by mikeb302000 on November 3, 2009 - 12:31 am

    Bob S., Isn’t it embarrassing for you to call me a liar when you support Prof. Kleck’s assertion that there are 2.5 million DGUs a year? Haven’t you repeatedly called me a liar for making claims that I didn’t back up with hard statistics? That’s exactly what Kleck has done. His contention is that many, the vast majority of DGUs are a brandishing of the gun which scares away the criminal, not requiring a police report and resulting in no injuries or shots fired. He may very well be right about this, but it’s pure speculation. It’s more or less what I’ve done myself. So why don’t you drop the name calling.

  22. #22 by Bob S. on November 3, 2009 - 2:39 am

    MikeB302000,

    Do you know what the word “liar” even means?

    Do you have reading comprehension failure syndrome also?

    Do you not notice the link I’ve provided in this thread to a study that supports Kleck and Gertz’s survey?

    That is supported with hard statistics?

    You’ve already have shown you don’t know how to tell truth from falsiity.

    Now you’ve shown that you don’t know how to tell statistical analysis of an accepted survey method from you made up guesses. Wow.

    Here are a couple of links that might help you out.
    1. What Kleck and Gertz did.
    2. What you did.

    If you have any trouble with any of the big words, let us know and we’ll explain them to you.

    Sorry, but I’m not going to stop calling you out on your lies and/or criminal past.

    You’ve admitted on at least 2 occasions that you’ve owned firearms illegally. You are so concerned with the “flow of guns’ yet you won’t talk about what you did with your illegally owned firearms.

    You advocate laws that you have not followed, right?
    Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite?

    You denied saying that you owned firearms illegally, doesn’t that make you a liar?

  23. #23 by Weer'd Beard on November 3, 2009 - 4:04 am

    Also note that MikeB keeps saying we need tighter laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals….but refuses to talk about how he got guns criminally himself.

    This leads me to believe that the anti-gun side does not want their expressed goal of lower death and crime, but instead want an unstated goal.

  24. #24 by Cliff Lyon on November 3, 2009 - 7:16 am

    Bob & Weerd,

    You guys are classic cons. Whenever you find yourselves in a corner, you start attacking the messenger. Did you learn that defense form Rove and Cheney, or coaches at the NRA?

    Even if MikeB were a convicted felony liar, it wouldn’t change the fact that Gary Kleck’s findings are unsupportable. Does that make Kleck a liar? You decide.

    Oh, and Bob S, thanks for the link to the definition of sampling.

  25. #25 by Bob S. on November 3, 2009 - 8:16 am

    Cliff,

    Why do you continue to ignore the link I’ve provided from the Clinton Administration study supporting Kleck and Gertz’s conclusion?

    And as far as a peer reviewed study supporting Kleck and Gertz, How about this one sponsored by the Clinton administration?

    Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF
    respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million
    DGUs.

    Some troubling comparisons. If the DGU numbers are in the right ballpark, millions of attempted assaults, thefts, and break-ins were foiled by armed citizens during the 12-month period. According to these results, guns are used far more often to defend against crime than to perpetrate crime. (Firearms were used by perpetrators in 1.07 million incidents of violent crime in 1994, according to NCVS data.)

    I don’t have a problem with MikeB302000 owning firearms. What I have a problem with is someone who is hypocritically calling for more gun control laws — when the very ones he ignored when it was convenient for him didn’t stop him from criminally purchasing firearms.

    Mikeb302000 likes to blame gun owners for the “flow of guns” from legal to illegal but isn’t willing to take responsibility for his own part in that flow…isn’t that hypocritical?

    The reason why I’m pointing this out is to let folks know the types of folks who are supporting gun control.

    I wonder if this video explains some gun control advocates reasons for supporting gun control?

    Whenever you find yourselves in a corner, you start attacking the messenger.

    Naw Cliffy, I learned it right here from you. I am just employing your standard techniques but with two major differences: 1.) We aren’t losing the debate or our rights & 2.) I’m telling the truth about the people.

  26. #26 by Cliff Lyon on November 3, 2009 - 9:12 am

    Bob S,

    I am astounded, SHOCKED you would use the Clinton era study. It is perhaps the strongest refutation of Kleck’s numbers and I used it effectively to shut down David Hardy and Alan Korwin over a year ago. Not even they were dumb enough to reference it, so I am pleased, to say the least, that you set yourself up so perfectly. Chop chop chop.

    Herewith, I post the rest of the report which you conveniently left out.

    In addition to destroying Kleck’s results, it also impunes the integrity of gun owners (see reasons they gun owners lie at the bottom)

    Some troubling comparisons. If the DGU numbers are in the right ballpark, millions of attempted assaults, thefts, and break-ins were foiled by armed citizens during the 12-month period.
    According to these results, guns are used far more often to defend against crime than to perpetrate crime. (Firearms were used by perpetrators in 1.07 million incidents of violent crime in 1994, according to NCVS data.)
     
    Thus, it is of considerable interest and importance to check the reasonableness of the NSPOF estimates before embracing them. Because respondents were asked to describe only their most recent defensive gun use, our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender. The results still suggest that DGU estimates are far too high.
     
    For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS (exhibit 8). For other crimes listed in exhibit 8, the results are almost as absurd: the NSPOF estimate of DGU robberies is 36 percent of all NCVS-estimated robberies, while the NSPOF estimate of DGU assaults is 19 percent of all aggravated assaults. If those percentages were close to accurate, crime would be a risky business indeed!
     
    NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases.[14]
     
    The evidence of bias in the DGU estimates is even stronger when one recalls that the DGU estimates are calculated using only the most recently reported DGU incidents of NSPOF respondents; as noted, about half of the respondents who reported a DGU indicated two or more in the preceding year. Although there are no details on the circumstances of those additional DGUs, presumably they are similar to the most recent case and provide evidence for additional millions of violent crimes foiled and perpetrators shot.
     
    False positives. Regardless of which estimates one believes, only a small fraction of adults have used guns defensively in 1994. The only question is whether that fraction is 1 in 1,800 (as one would conclude from the NCVS) or 1 in 100 (as indicated by the NSPOF estimate based on Kleck and Gertz’s criteria).
     
    Any estimate of the incidence of a rare event based on screening the general population is likely to have a positive bias. The reason can best be explained by use of an epidemiological framework.[15] Screening tests are always subject to error, whether the "test" is a medical examination for cancer or an interview question for DGUs. The errors are either "false negatives" or "false positives." If the latter tend to outnumber the former, the population prevalence will be exaggerated.
     
    The reason this sort of bias can be expected in the case of rare events boils down to a matter of arithmetic. Suppose the true prevalence is 1 in 1,000. Then out of every 1,000 respondents, only 1 can possibly supply a "false negative," whereas any of the 999 may provide a "false positive." If even 2 of the 999 provide a false positive, the result will be a positive bias–regardless of whether the one true positive tells the truth.  
     
    Respondents might falsely provide a positive response to the DGU question for any of a number of reasons:
     
    o They may want to impress the interviewer by their heroism and hence exaggerate a trivial event.
     
    o They may be genuinely confused due to substance abuse, mental illness, or simply less-than-accurate memories.
     
    o They may actually have used a gun defensively within the last couple of years but falsely report it as occurring in the previous year–a phenomenon known as "telescoping."
     
    Of course, it is easy to imagine the reasons why that rare respondent who actually did use a gun
    defensively within the time frame may have decided not to report it to the interviewer. But again, the arithmetic dictates that the false positives will likely predominate.
     
    In line with the theory that many DGU reports are exaggerated or falsified, we note that in some of these reports, the respondents’ answers to the followup items are not consistent with respondents’ reported DGUs. For example, of the 19 NSPOF respondents meeting the more restrictive Kleck and Gertz DGU criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated that the circumstance of the DGU was rape, robbery, or attack–but then responded "no" to a subsequent question: "Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or injure you?"
     
    The key explanation for the difference between the 108,000 NCVS estimate for the annual number of DGUs and the several million from the surveys discussed earlier is that NCVS avoids the false-positive problem by limiting DGU questions to persons who first reported that they were crime victims. Most NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the DGU question, falsely or otherwise.
     
    Unclear benefits and costs from gun uses. Even if one were clever enough to design a questionnaire that would weed out error, a problem in interpreting the result would remain. Should the number of DGUs serve as a measure of the public benefit of private gun possession, even in principle? When it comes to DGUs, is more better? That is doubtful, for two kinds of reasons:
     
    o First, people who draw their guns to defend themselves against perceived threats are not necessarily innocent victims; they may have started fights themselves or they may simply be mistaken about whether the other persons really intended to harm them. Survey interviewers must take the respondent’s word for what happened and why; a competent police investigation of the same incident would interview all parties before reaching a conclusion.
     
    o Second and more generally, the number of DGUs tells us little about the most important effects on crime of widespread gun ownership. When a high percentage of homes, vehicles, and even purses contain guns, that presumably has an important effect on the behavior of predatory criminals. Some may be deterred or diverted to other types of crime. Others may change tactics, acquiring a gun themselves or in some other way seeking to preempt gun use by the intended victim.[16] Such consequences presumably have an important effect on criminal victimization rates but are in no way  reflected in the DGU count.

    Another gun freak bites the dust!!!

  27. #27 by Cliff Lyon on November 3, 2009 - 9:27 am

    Bob S, This is my favorite one from the report YOU referenced;

    or example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated

    WTF?

  28. #28 by Bob S. on November 3, 2009 - 10:29 am

    Cliff,

    That really sounds more like gun banners not wanting to admit reality.

    or example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense.

    They conveniently leave out the fact that is only for rape and robbery attempts reported to the police, right?

    I always find it amazing to try to understand the mindset of people like you and the two that wrote the report.

    Isn’t common sense to say that more crimes are attempted then succeed? Or are American criminals so good that every time they try to rob someone they get away with it?

    Isn’t it likely that a rapist will follow or try to rape several women before finally being able to get the circumstances that allow him to actually commit the crime?

    For example, of the 19 NSPOF respondents meeting the more restrictive Kleck and Gertz DGU criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated that the circumstance of the DGU was rape, robbery, or attack–but then responded “no” to a subsequent question: “Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or injure you?”

    Again, let’s look at the criteria they are using to try to discredit the Defensive Gun Use (DGU).

    Did the perpetrator threaten you? Meaning did the perpetrator say anything that could be interpreted as a threat?
    Isn’t it likely that many perpetrators would speak before an attack yet their very actions would be threatening? An entirely different criteria, right?

    Or how about attack? If a person uses a firearm to stop a potential attack then the perpetrator couldn’t have attacked…simple logic.

    The display of a firearm has prevented criminals from starting their attack, surely even you agree with that right?

    Or injure? Hmm, let’s see a defensive gun uses that stops at attack before harm can be caused means that there wasn’t an attack?

    You’ve asked for a study which validates Kleck and Gertz. I’ve provided it.

    Even if the researchers didn’t like the conclusion of their study it clearly points out the fact that 2.5 Million Defensive Gun uses isn’t impossible.

    Second and more generally, the number of DGUs tells us little about the most important effects on crime of widespread gun ownership.

    i agree with this statement. What is interesting is combining the reports on Defensive Gun Uses, with information about the increases in gun ownership, with the increases in concealed carry permits and crime data.

    You don’t deny that there has been an increase in the number of firearms owned by civilians, do you?

    You don’t deny that there has been an increase in the number of people with concealed carry permits, do you?

    You don’t deny that crime rates are dropping, do you?

    So, guess that kind puts paid to the tired meme of “more guns =more deaths” and “more guns = more crime”, eh?

  29. #29 by jdberger on November 3, 2009 - 10:37 am

    Hi James. Nice to see (read) you, too.

    I’d love to bring back rational discussion but don’t have much hope.

    I’ve also learned something from watching politics all these years. It’s not worth debating when you are winning.

    With the success of Heller, the pending success of MacDonald, the “woe is me” attitude of “anti-rights” icons like Josh Sugarman, Paul Helmke and Tom Diaz and the continued restoration of gun rights across the nation – it’s pretty clear that the forces on the side of civil rights are winning.

    So why debate?

    Because in the end, it doesn’t matter if hunters have a chance at a duck or deer. It doesn’t matter if Kleck’s numbers are right, or even close. Wajt does matter is that firearms are unparalled in their utility for self defense. It does matter that goverments are wary of armed citizens. And it does matter that the framers or our Republic thought it important enough to enumerate the right to arms.

    Cliff can blather on with his tired, rehashed circular argument all he likes. It drives his post counts much more than his creepy Olberman hero worship – but the die was cast centuries ago.

    Folks are simply coming to grips with it.

  30. #30 by Weer'd Beard on November 3, 2009 - 10:52 am

    Great Comment JD!

  31. #31 by Cliff Lyon on November 3, 2009 - 10:54 am

    Bob S,

    Just when I thought you couldn’t get any more rediculous…

    I always find it amazing to try to understand the mindset of people like you and the two that wrote the report.

    So now, you are attacking me AND the people who wrote the very report you initially held out as confirmation of Klecks numbers.

    Then you insist that their report DOES confirm the Kleck study by saying,

    Even if the researchers didn’t like the conclusion of their study it clearly points out the fact that 2.5 Million Defensive Gun uses isn’t impossible.

    …by using the old, “you can’t prove it isn’t true” strategy. Hey! Thats the same argument for the existence of God.

    Followed by a bunch of “You don’t deny” completely unrelated to the Kleck study (change the subject)

    Look fucknuts, I addressed your shit, now you address mine and try not to pretend you are an expert on crime.

    How the hell do you explain the the fact that the study not only disputes Kleck, but demonstrates the unreliability of studies participants by virtue of the fact that gun owning women claim more attempted rapes that ANY estimate of annual rapes?

    Oh yeah, you already did dispute that with your new found, unilateral decision that

    “Isn’t common sense to say that more crimes are attempted then succeed? Or are American criminals so good that every time they try to rob someone they get away with it?

    Isn’t it likely that a rapist will follow or try to rape several women before finally being able to get the circumstances that allow him to actually commit the crime?

    No Bob, it is not common sense and luckily, we don’t have to speculate, we have tons of real experts on the subject of crime who preclude our need to speculate (and/or call it common sense).

    Commons sense says look it up!

    And yes, Bob, I agree that crime is dropping. But I have NEVER seen ANYBODY claim that it is because of gun ownership…except you.

    Not even your friends are backing you on this one.

  32. #32 by James farmer on November 3, 2009 - 11:01 am

    It does matter that goverments are wary of armed citizens.

    Precisely, jd, and this is why the debate continues. Everyone agrees that some restrictions are both necessary and pass muster under the constitution. There will, however, be limits on the restrictions. And thus the debate continues on the road toward defining and implementing those limits.

  33. #33 by Bob S. on November 3, 2009 - 11:31 am

    Cliff,

    My friends aren’t “backing” me on this because there is no need.

    The study didn’t dispute Kleck it confirmed it. If the study had found fewer defensive gun uses then Kleck, then it would disputed Kleck.

    For those One Utah authors that have reading comprehension failure syndrome, here it is again:

    Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This
    estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz,
    shown in the last column of exhibit 7.

    Is that not the conclusion of the survey they conducted?

    You asked for and received proof that the number of defensive gun uses as reported by Kleck and Gertz was confirmed. This study confirmed that information.

    Now, you are crying because you don’t want to hear the truth.

    Look fucknuts, I addressed your shit, now you address mine and try not to pretend you are an expert on crime.

    I can always tell when you are desperate. You start calling names. Keep going, show everyone how civil, polite and well manner gun control advocates are.
    Next, I’ve never claimed nor pretended to be an expert…isn’t that your trick?

    Oh yeah, you already did dispute that with your new found, unilateral decision that

    Your reading comprehension issues are acting up again. The little symbol “?” at the end of the sentence indicates an interrogatory sentence. I’m asking the question…not making an expert claim.

    Do you deny the fact that is it reasonable to say that more crimes are attempted then what are actually committed?

    Let’s look at some evidence since you are so uncomfortable with common sense.

    1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape).1

    The Census Bureau estimates the female population to be 152,819,203

    2.3% of 152,819,203 equals = 3,514,841 attempted rapes.

    In 2008, the estimated number of forcible rapes (89,000)—the lowest figure in the last 20 years—decreased 1.6 percent from the 2007 estimate. The estimated volume of rapes in 2008 was 6.4 percent lower than in 2004 and was 0.5 percent below the 1999 level. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)

    Do you dispute the FBI’s assertion?

    According to the 1999 United States National Crime Victimization Survey, only 39% of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement officials.

    So, we have underreporting of actual rapes as a strong possibility.

    Then isn’t it safe to say that we also have an under reporting of attempted rapes?

    Isn’t it feasible, scientifically and with some common sense, to suggest that more rapes are attempted then what are actually committed?

    Guess common sense and the statistics agree, eh Cliffy?

  34. #34 by Cliff Lyon on November 3, 2009 - 2:53 pm

    There is no way any sane person can suggest this is the conclusion of the study

    “Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This
    estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7.”

    The paper goes on to explain WHY those results are invalid.

    “The results still suggest that DGU estimates are far too high.”

  35. #35 by Bob S. on November 3, 2009 - 2:54 pm

    And do they provide EVIDENCE or just their opinions?

  36. #36 by Cliff Lyon on November 3, 2009 - 6:05 pm

    I think they state their evidence quite clearly.

    For example, the sample extrapolated out to numbers that far exceeded to total number of rapes/year.

    Thats evidence.

    If you have to ask if they were stating opinions, you do not understand academic standards or the difference.

    That fact puts you squarely in the conspiracy camp. No wonder you hold so tightly to your guns.

    You think you may need them to oppose government tyranny.

    Right?

  37. #37 by anonymous on November 3, 2009 - 6:56 pm

    Holding tightly to his guns digby waited as the assay was conducted.The sample extrapolated a proportion of value not to exceed the total sum of the number of avalable rocks, the difference was in understanding the standards as duly stated, as needed to oppose any government tyranny with regards to sleights of weights and measures.

  38. #38 by mikeb302000 on November 4, 2009 - 12:05 am

    Bob S. and Weer’d, What’s wrong with your side of the argument that you find it necessary to spend so much time writing about me and focusing on my past? That’s what we call “personal attacking” and as Cliff mentioned it’s a shabby tactic used in debate.
    Above you said “at least two times” I mentioned my having owned guns illegally. Well, it was exactly 2 times and you know it since you’ve lived and breathed this thing for months. Meanwhile, Weer’d your buddy said I had been “bragging about it all over the internet.” He repeated that several times. This is another lie that you endorsed. And this is what I denied, not my original statement but the fact that I’d been “bragging about it all over the internet.” You know that very well, yet you say I lied about the whole thing.

    I’m afraid, Bob, you and Weer’d and Linoge whom you keep linking to, are sick men obsessed with what you see as a battle between yourselves and the gun control folks. Your obsession has warped your thinking to the point of blurring the boundaries of what’s acceptable behavior and what’s not. You justify lying in yourselves and accuse others of being liars, which is a good description of hypocrisy, another epithet you keep slinging at others. I suppose you feel since you’re in a “war” anything is justified, but it’s not, Bob.

  39. #39 by Weer'd Beard on November 4, 2009 - 3:54 am

    You seem to write a lot about yourself too, MikeB, and not really doing jack or shit to refute our points.

    God I love the smell of Irony and Ignorance in the morning, it smells like victory over a Felon for Gun Control!

  40. #40 by Bob S. on November 4, 2009 - 7:48 am

    MikeB302000,

    necessary to spend so much time writing about me and focusing on my past?

    Don’t flatter yourself Sparky, it only takes a few minutes of time to mention your hypocrisy, lies and involvement with illegally owned firearms.

    That’s what we call “personal attacking” and as Cliff mentioned it’s a shabby tactic used in debate.

    The most ironic part of that comment is that you don’t realize how ironic it is.

    Cliff is well known for his personal attacks. Heck, I started coming around here because he called Alan Korwin a liar.

    You allow personal attacks to be posted in the comments if they are against gun owners or 2nd amendment advocates but don’t approve comments that show the hypocrisy of your position even if they aren’t personal attacks.

    I suppose you feel since you’re in a “war” anything is justified, but it’s not, Bob.

    And more irony from you MIkeB. You seem to think that any infringement of the rights of others are okay as long as it might possibly, someday, someway, if everything goes right it could reduce crime or injury.

    What war are you fighting MikeB302000 that you think it is acceptable to violate the rights of innocent people because of the actions of criminals?

    Pointing out the nature of the people who oppose freedom isn’t unacceptable behavior. You seem not to like it because it shows you for what you are.

  41. #41 by James farmer on November 4, 2009 - 4:33 pm

    Weer’d and Bob:

    I must hand it to you, that was a nice dodge on both your parts this time around. Mike raises very valid points, and not one of you responds to those points. Instead you respond to something entirely different. Indeed, I think there is a bit of hypocricy in there for both of you this time.

    Cat got your tongues?

  42. #42 by Weer'd Beard on November 4, 2009 - 6:43 pm

    Hey look, James is accusing others of Dodging!

    That’s IRONY! Funny! ; ]

  43. #43 by Bob S. on November 4, 2009 - 7:11 pm

    James,

    I thought I did respond to his points. Which did I mention?

    How about the comment

    That’s what we call “personal attacking” and as Cliff mentioned it’s a shabby tactic used in debate.

    Did I not discuss that?

    Gun Lobby Liars, Gary Kleck, Alan Korwin, National Rifle Association (NRA) Continue to Deceive Americans | One Utah

    That is the name of the tab when i open this post….Cliff says that personal attacks are shabby?
    While calling us liars? Hypocrisy anyone?

    MikeB302000 who admits to owning firearms illegally spends much time on his blog discussing how “10%” of gun owners shouldn’t own firearms. Sounds like a personal attack, right?

    Does he support his idea with any facts, evidence, statistics? Anything? Nope.

    It doesn’t take long to respond to his lies, distortions. We’ve done it repeatedly over the past 18 or so months.

    To use an analogy that MikeB302000 hates; if a person producing child pron was advocating laws that he would ignore but would restrict your 1st amendment rights, wouldn’t you want to know what type of person he was?

    I’m not saying that MikeB302000 has anything to do with that crime.

    Is it wrong to let people know that MikeB302000 didn’t obey gun control laws and is now advocating more gun control laws?

    He repeated that several times. This is another lie that you endorsed. And this is what I denied, not my original statement but the fact that I’d been “bragging about it all over the internet.”

    We addressed this over at his site. MikeB302000 lied about it by saying that Weer’d was making things up or making personal attacks

    Weer’d repeatedly made requests for information about MikeB302000′s ilegally owned firearms. Those comments were deleted repeatedly with MikeB302000 calling them slander, lies and personal attacks.

    By repeatedly denying the validity of Weer’d's claims, MikeB302000 repeatedly lied.

    Walls of the City covered this

    Weer’d Beard covered this
    Armed and Safe addressed this (link available but worried about spam filter)
    I covered it

    So to say that we haven’t addressed MikeB302000 points is a little inaccurate. We just haven’t gone it all here again.

    So, if this post makes it past the spam filter, what parts of MikeB302000′s comments didn’t I address?

  44. #44 by Cliff Lyon on November 8, 2009 - 8:11 am

    Bob S,

    If your life depended on it, do you think you could come up with a convincing argument for why MikeB’s so called “repeated lies” might pale in comparison to Alan Korwin’s lies on C-Span?

    Im really curious if you can tell the difference.

  45. #45 by Cliff Lyon on November 8, 2009 - 8:50 am

    Ok Weer’d I just wasted 10 minutes carefully reading through your post “MikeB302000, Liar, or Criminal Liar?” and I was unable to see where exactly you demonstrate that MikeB lied.

    What I did read, was the kind of incoherent rant one might expect from a drunk high school drop out who’s never been in a significant position of authority and as such has never needed to defend such accusations.

    One would think, If MikeB really did lie, that one could easily point out the lie.

    It would be really easy. Here’s an example of what I mean…

    Alan Korwin said “Guns save hundreds of thousands of lives a year.”

    This is a lie.

    When challenged to defend that statement, Alan Korwin invoked the Kleck study. But the Kleck study does not say lives were saved anywhere. Kleck’s was a study about defensive gun uses (DUG) not lives saved.

    See how easy that is?

    So, if MikeB lied, tell us exactly what he said that is untrue.

    All I could find were comments like “So certainly MikeB HAS to be lying here no matter what. I would say that the majority of his “Biography” given is fictitious” or “This scenario would still make him a liar,” or “So is MikeB a Liar, or a Lying Criminal? I don’t know, but let’s play devil’s advocate and say he’s just lying about the guns, as well as his biography.”

    How about, “No matter what, MikeB is a classic liar from the anti-freedom, pro-ignorance front”

    Im sorry Weer’d, I just couldn’t see where you’ve shown that MikeB has lied.

    But here’s the really stupid part. Your entire argument claims that if MikeB is a liar, therefore his arguments about gun’s and gun policy is somehow not valid.

    That logic does not follow. Even if you could prove someone is a liar, it does not change the truth of the facts he uses to make his arguments.

  46. #46 by Bob S. on November 10, 2009 - 11:29 am

    Cliff,

    As always you have it backwards

    why MikeB’s so called “repeated lies” might pale in comparison to Alan Korwin’s lies on C-Span?

    First, evidence presented, repeatedly shows that Mr. Korwin didn’t lie. You can repeat it all you want but the facts remain. Defensive Gun uses are established facts and the numbers have been verified by different studies.

    MikeB302000 has repeated lies – such as “90% of all firearms confiscated in Mexico”. Even after multiple attempts to convince him of the truth, even after multiple citations of the actual facts and numbers MikeB302000 lied. Only after months of repeating the lie did he stop.

    Next and most important, MikeB302000 lies are directed at trying to restrict our rights. Alan Korwin statements did not try to restrict anyone’s rights.

    MikeB30200 lied by calling Weer’d's statements unfounded and a personal attack. He called Weer’d a liar multiple times when Weer’d ONLY asked about his ownership of illegal guns. Not the “bragging” but simply calling Weer’d a liar and was making personal attacks.

    If MikeB302000 owned firearms illegally, as he has admitted, then he has direct personal evidence that the gun control laws he is advocating do not work.
    MikeB302000 has repeatedly claimed that gun control laws work….yet the laws didn’t stop him from illegally purchasing a firearm, did they?

    Your entire argument claims that if MikeB is a liar, therefore his arguments about gun’s and gun policy is somehow not valid.

    I would like a citation of Weer’d's or my comments that claim this or would that be too close to calling you a liar?

    What we state is simply this- Should trust a person who says they have your best interest in mind after that person has been proven to be a liar?

    MikeB302000 has lied repeatedly about his ownership of firearms and the effectiveness of gun control laws. What else is he lying about?

  47. #47 by Cliff Lyon on November 10, 2009 - 1:29 pm

    “Defensive Gun uses are established facts and the numbers have been verified by different studies.”

    Bob S, Show me ONE! Just one!

  48. #48 by Bob S. on November 10, 2009 - 3:16 pm

    Cliff,

    I’ve shown you two studies. Kleck and Gertz was one.

    The other study — commissioned by the Clinton administration was the other.

    While the authors may not like the results of their survey, that survey confirmed Kleck and Gertz.

    Not one piece of evidence was submitted to show the results weren’t valid. NOT ONE.

    They just said We don’t like it, this study shows that guns prevent more crimes then what happens.

    Did they present any evidence showing that firearms didn’t prevent more rapes then were reported? NOPE.

    Also notice who you entirely skip over how MikeB302000 has been lying and how that fact undermines gun control laws.

  49. #49 by Cliff Lyon on November 10, 2009 - 8:22 pm

    Kleck is one? Kleck is the one in question. Why would you use it to supports its conclusion?

    The Clinton one tested the Kleck methodology and came up with 4 million DGU and twice the accepted number of rapes/year.

    Are you confined by any chance?

  50. #50 by Weer'd Beard on November 13, 2009 - 10:33 am

  51. #51 by Uncle Rico on December 28, 2009 - 9:17 am

    So, at the risk of incurring the wrath those gun owners who feel that their constitutional rights are being jeopardized anytime anyone even dares to ask about the actual and/or potential negative consequences of gun ownership, I’d be interested in hearing ideas about how this issue should be addressed. How do you deal with the clean up costs of irresponsible bubbas who haul a bunch of shit out to the desert, fill it full of lead, and then leave it there for the taxpayer to clean up? Or those who feel the need to exercise their 2nd amendment rights by blasting signs and other public property to smithereens? Or the non-bubbas who use BLM lands for practice and then litter the public domain with empty shell casings and lead?

    Do we tax ammo much like we do cigarettes now and use those proceeds to clean up after shooters? Do we increase enforcement by hiring more rangers and other federal law enforcment personnel and fine the bejesus out violators? If so, how do you apportion the costs? Do we demand stricter self-regulation by the NRA and other pro-guns groups and hope they do the job that they are not doing now? Or do we simply throw our hands up and conclude that the expense of cleaning up after shooters is the cost of the 2nd amendment?

    BTW, I get that gun owners are not the only ones despoiling our public lands. I’ve seen first-hand the refuse left behind by other public land users and the referenced articles is not about shooter per se. But I’m interested specifically in how we solve this piece of the puzzle since it potentially involves issues that don’t arise when we’re merely talking about an ATV rider who is the first one to talk about rights, but the last one to talk about responsibility.

    Thoughts?

  52. #52 by jdberger on December 31, 2009 - 8:33 pm

    Rico.

    Prosecute them. Exercising your 2A rights doesn’t give you the right to dump your trash in the desert.

    Yes, ammo and guns are taxed to maintain public lands (sorry for the mangled sentence).

    Lots of gun groups (local and grassroots) organize public land cleanups. We do what we can.

    BTW – I didn’t read the article yet – just responding to the post (which was a great question).

    Happy New Year.

  53. #53 by Earnan on November 2, 2011 - 9:03 pm

    Cliff Lyon is a lying sack of shit.

    That’s the only fact that matters.

  54. #54 by Shane Smith on November 3, 2011 - 7:43 am

    Braaaaains! Zombie thread resurrected to make no comment! Braaaaaains!

  55. #55 by brewski on November 3, 2011 - 9:05 am

    Cliff,
    Is it worse to kill someone with a gun or with a glass made by child labor in China containing poison?

  56. #56 by Anonymous on December 6, 2012 - 11:57 pm

    Quit being so bias on the anti gun debate. If I was in a movie theater or any other place where my life is in danger I rather have a gun on me to protect my self than be lying on the floor waiting to be shot by sum thug who out to kill me and others. Also, put more effort into promoting stricter laws for the mentally ill and those repeated offenders that do these crimes. All you ever do it blame guns for killing. Car kill more people than guns why not ban them? You think the only solution is banning and not personal responsibility. What ever you do you will not stop violent crime. It part of our society. Get use to it.

  57. #57 by Richard Warnick on December 7, 2012 - 9:34 am

    “Anonymous” wins today’s award for most original spelling and grammar. Congratulations, and best of luck in your nameless endeavors!

    BTW we require car drivers to be licensed.

  58. #58 by Richard Warnick on December 7, 2012 - 9:40 am

    According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, gun deaths exceeded motor vehicle deaths in 10 states in 2009, the most recent year for which state level data is available.

    Alaska: 104 gun deaths, 84 motor vehicle deaths
    Arizona: 856 gun deaths, 809 motor vehicle deaths
    Colorado: 583 gun deaths, 565 motor vehicle deaths
    Indiana: 735 gun deaths, 715 motor vehicle deaths
    Michigan: 1,095 gun deaths, 977 motor vehicle deaths
    Nevada: 406 gun deaths, 255 motor vehicle deaths
    Oregon: 417 gun deaths, 394 motor vehicle deaths
    Utah: 260 gun deaths, 256 motor vehicle deaths
    Virginia: 836 gun deaths, 827 motor vehicle deaths
    Washington: 623 gun deaths, 580 motor vehicle deaths

    Nationally, there were 31,236 firearm deaths in 2009 and 36,361 motor vehicle deaths.

  59. #59 by cav on December 7, 2012 - 9:50 am

    I’ve wondered if the ‘cow-toweller’ would ever show again.

    Been missing him.

  60. #60 by jdberger on December 7, 2012 - 11:05 am

    Funny, when I run a WISQARS search I come up with different numbers. Of course, I’m using the actual CDC site and not the website of an organzation that has a vested financial interest in the debate.

    WISQARS shows that in 2009 there were 11,493 homicides in which firearms were used nationwide.

    WISQARS also shows that in 2009 there were 36,399 motor vehicle deaths.

    WISQARS shows the following data for the States listed above.

    Alaska: 17 murders with guns, 84 motor vehicle deaths
    Arizona: 228 murders with guns, 809 motor vehicle deaths
    Colorado: 108 murders with guns, 565 motor vehicle deaths
    Indiana: 245 murders with guns, 715 motor vehicle deaths
    Michigan: 495 murders with guns, 977 motor vehicle deaths
    Nevada: 97 murders with guns, 255 motor vehicle deaths
    Oregon: 55 murders with guns, 394 motor vehicle deaths
    Utah: 30 murders with guns, 256 motor vehicle deaths
    Virginia: 272 murders with guns, 827 motor vehicle deaths
    Washington: 118 murders with guns, 580 motor vehicle deaths

    The difference being that suicide was excluded from my data set, suicide being an act of volition.

  61. #61 by cav on December 7, 2012 - 11:32 am

    Killing yourself with a gun after killing someone else only counts as One gun death as per your approach?

  62. #62 by Richard Warnick on December 7, 2012 - 11:42 am

    Suicides and accidental gun deaths outnumber firearm homicides, so I can understand why you would want to leave them out of your apples vs. oranges comparison.

  63. #63 by jdberger on December 7, 2012 - 11:46 am

    Yes. In the same way as intentionally running over someone and then running your car with the garage closed would only count as one Motor Vehicle Death.

    Let’s be honest. Suicides are only lumped in with murders to pump up the numbers. Otherwise we’d see organizations like the Coalition to Stop Bridge Jumping, National Razor Blade Action Campaign, and the Project to End Intentional Drug Overdose advocating for the banning of items used to commit suicide. We don’t, because most folks realize that blaming an inanimate object for the voluntary act of a person is stupid (ban spoons because they make people fat, etc.).

  64. #64 by jdberger on December 7, 2012 - 11:47 am

    Oh – hi Cav. Long time. I hope you’ve been well.

  65. #65 by Richard Warnick on December 7, 2012 - 11:58 am

    Checking the 2010 CDC stats, which are not available by individual state, indicates that firearms deaths exceeded traffic fatalities in the West.

    Firearms / Traffic

    USA 31,672 / 33,687

    Northeast 3,603 / 4,355
    South 14,414 / 15,982
    Midwest 6,514 / 7,038
    West 7,141 / 6,312

  66. #66 by jdberger on December 7, 2012 - 12:11 pm

    Comparing apples to apples or apples to air conditioners?

    Is this firearms accidents compared to motor vehicle accidents? Murders to murders. Suicides to suicides?

    Or are suicides and murders being lumped together to inflate the numbers?

  67. #67 by Richard Warnick on December 7, 2012 - 12:12 pm

    Selecting only homicides is cherry-picking the data. Which apparently is your main hobby – busting caps is secondary.

    If you want to compare the number of automobile homicides with gun homicides, we could do that.

  68. #68 by cav on December 7, 2012 - 1:19 pm

    Hi jd. it has indeed. And a kind wish to you and yours, as well.

  69. #69 by cav on December 7, 2012 - 1:31 pm

    I think the issue is and always has been the ready availability of such a deadly instrument. Accidentally inflicted wounds – even lethal ones, suicides and murders are higher than if someone felt the need to strangle or shoot an arrow at someone else, not to mention inadvertently strangling themselves or a neighbor.

    But I get that our world is vastly more complicated, crowded, and ‘hair-triggered’ than could ever have been imagined 400 years ago – so we go on this way while the tolls mount.

    Catastrophic climate occurrences should take a bit of the load off our feeble attempts at culling our seemingly cancerous population numbers.

  70. #70 by bob felcher on December 23, 2012 - 10:07 pm

    wow what a load. Only 2.5 million defensive use of weapons in Europe during WW2? Please! Roughly 50 million soldiers firing hundreds of Billions of rounds, but apparently they used their weapons to defend themselves less than 99.9 percent of the time.
    Please, where do you liberals come up with such tripe.

  71. #71 by Richard Warnick on December 24, 2012 - 10:18 am

    In Europe during 1944. Read the post.

  72. #72 by cav on December 24, 2012 - 10:28 pm

  73. #73 by Waz on December 24, 2012 - 11:23 pm

    Totally inaccurate either way Richard, there were at least that many probably twice that on the Russian front alone, but would any American or anyone but Russians know about that

  74. #74 by cav on December 25, 2012 - 10:34 am

    /listens. . . . . .

    No gunfire. Must be peace on earth.

  75. #75 by Cliff Lyon on December 26, 2012 - 10:08 am

    Hey Bob Felcher,

    I believe it was I who first posed the comparison to American DGUs during WWII Europe.

    The point was to help you you hysterical, back-woods, Bubbas understand that 2.5mm DUG’s/year would look a lot like 1944 in Europe.

    Kleck is an idiot. His methods were disprove over and over and over some more.

    Not even Bubba Kleck himself has EVER attempted to defend his fantasy study.

  76. #76 by cav on December 26, 2012 - 7:36 pm

    On one of these ‘gun’ threads, in the not too distant past, BobS referred to the CDC in terms I took to be authoritative. Then I came upon this (below) which sort of altered my take on that. Perhaps BobS would care to comment.

    In 1996, pro-gun members of Congress mounted an all-out effort to eliminate the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Although they failed to defund the center, the House of Representatives removed $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget—precisely the amount the agency had spent on firearm injury research the previous year. Funding was restored in joint conference committee, but the money was earmarked for traumatic brain injury. The effect was sharply reduced support for firearm injury research.

    To ensure that the CDC and its grantees got the message, the following language was added to the final appropriation: “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control. ”Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency’s funding to find out.

    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470

  77. #77 by jdberger on January 9, 2013 - 10:49 am

    Cav –

    There’s a difference between CDC research (which was being used to advocate/promote gun control at the time) and CDC statistics – which are numbers without conclusions. CDC numbers concerning injuries/deaths due to accidents, suicides or assaults by people with firearms are pretty solid. You can cross check them with FBI numbers for veracity.

    The reason for the “defunding” of NCIPC “gun studies” at CDC was simple. Congress asked itself the question, “should this government actively fund research that seeks to deprive citizens of their fundamental enumerated civil rights”? And they answered, “no”. And rightly so, just as we would hope that Congress would discourage “scholarship” seeking correlations between homosexuality and pedophilia, or the Voting Rights Act and the plague of inner city gangs.

  78. #78 by cav on January 9, 2013 - 11:00 am

    jdberger. I think it may be time to activate a little discernment of different qualities of ‘the Citizen’. Lunatics, boldly treasonous, and the like should be excluded. Checks, and regulations should be established and enforced. This would also be protection for the sensible user, who I’m certain abhors being associated with these freaks.

  79. #79 by cav on January 9, 2013 - 11:07 am

    But the real solution is to tax ammo. Raise the price of firing that thing.

  80. #80 by jdberger on January 9, 2013 - 11:08 am

    Cliff,

    We’ve discussed Kleck before. Though some disagreed with his results, his methods were solid.

    Marvin Wolfgang, a noted criminologist who was on record favoring a ban on all firearms, even those carried by law enforcement officers, was quoted as saying that the Kleck survey was nearly foolproof, saying: “What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator…I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology.”

    Even Kleck’s critics found as many as 1.5 million defensive gun uses a year http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6112

    See also: PHILIP COOK & JESS LUDWIG, GUNS IN AMERICA (1997) and Philip J. Cook et al., The Gun Debates’s New Mythical Number: How Many Defensive Uses Per Year?, 16 J. POL’Y ANALYSIS & MGMT. 463, 465 (1997)

    (by the way, Cliff, this constitutes “peer review”)

    You can make your own conclusions, but you can’t make up your own facts.

  81. #81 by jdberger on January 9, 2013 - 11:23 am

    Cav –

    I welcome your suggestion to exclude from “full citizenship” (see Civil Death) lunatics, the boldly treasonous (convicted of course), felons, and domestic abusers. Those people should not be allowed to purchase or own firearms.

    Just like it says in the 1968 Gun Control Act…..

    18 USC CHAPTER 44 – FIREARMS
    Sec. 922
    (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person – (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien – (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that – (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

  82. #82 by Richard Warnick on January 9, 2013 - 1:16 pm

    jd–

    Would you support strengthening the background-check system for gun sales?

  83. #83 by jdberger on January 9, 2013 - 1:28 pm

    Richard,

    What are you proposing, specifically?

    From your linked article I see:

    *Improving the quality of the data in the database. *YES*

    What other specific proposals do you have?

  84. #84 by Richard Warnick on January 9, 2013 - 2:08 pm

    Seems like improving the background-check database is something that might get broad support. Although as far as I know the NRA leadership still wants to allow people on the terrorist watch list to buy guns.

    In addition to improving the background-check system, we need common-sense regulations. For example, re-instating the assault weapons ban and the ban on large-capacity magazines.

  85. #85 by Bob S. on January 9, 2013 - 2:14 pm

    Richard,

    Do you support requiring people to undergo a background check before going on face book (Google Megan Meier, Erin Gallagher or Amanda Todd) ?

    Do you support requiring people to undergo a background check before purchasing a motor vehicle?
    (Motor vehicle traffic deaths – Number of deaths: 34,485 Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.2 —- All firearm deaths Number of deaths: 31,347
    Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2 for 2009)

    Hey….I have an idea, instead of making it illegal to sell a gun privately ( in the hopes it will stop murder) why don’t we just cut to the chase and make it illegal to murder someone or take their own life with a firearm?

    /sarcasm

  86. #86 by Richard Warnick on January 9, 2013 - 2:27 pm

    Bob S.–

    I support laws that make cars and driving safer. The reason that cars have been getting safer is precisely because they are regulated. Guns now kill more people than cars in 10 states, which is remarkable because 90 percent of households have a car and only a third have a gun.

  87. #87 by jdberger on January 9, 2013 - 2:28 pm

    Richard –

    Does the “Terrorist Watch List” have Due Process protections? Or is it a secret government list where people on it are left without recourse or an ability to challenge it?

    Remember, Ted Kennedy was on it. So was a 6 year old boy.

    Just for now, and to keep this discussion from becoming unmanageable, let’s focus on Background Checks. We can tackle “Assault Weapons” and “large-capacity” magazines later.

    (Hi Bob! How have you been?)

  88. #88 by jdberger on January 9, 2013 - 2:30 pm

    Richard – I debunked your cars/guns statistic in post #60, above.

  89. #89 by Richard Warnick on January 9, 2013 - 2:33 pm

    jd–

    As you know, I’m not a fan of the terrorist watch list. However, not being able to buy a gun is not nearly as inconvenient as not being allowed to board an airplane. And Ted Kennedy was only temporarily inconvenienced.

    You can cherry-pick the gun statistics to exclude accidents and suicide, but then it’s not a valid comparison with traffic fatalities. How about comparing automobile homicides with gun homicides?

    More on background checks. Would you support ending the Tiahrt Amendments to aid law enforcement? For example:

    The Tiahrt Amendments require the Justice Department to destroy the record of a buyer whose NICS background check was approved within 24 hours. This makes it harder to catch law-breaking gun dealers who falsify their records, and it makes it more difficult to identify and track straw purchasers who buy guns on behalf of criminals who wouldn’t be able to pass a background check.

  90. #90 by jdberger on January 9, 2013 - 3:04 pm

    Richard –

    So the Terrorist Watch List proscriptions should only apply to those rights you don’t care about?

    Isn’t Due Process a universal right? Shouldn’t it apply to everyone?

    If you can’t board an airplane, you can drive, take a train or take a boat. What are the alternatives if you can’t buy a gun? Take a karate class? What if you’re 80?

    Please explain how the Tiahrt Amendment encumbers law enforcement? 4473s are kept by dealers for eternity (literally). If that dealer goes out of business, all the 4473s are turned over to ATF.

    But the Tiahrt Amendment doesn’t really have anything to do with background checks, it’s record keeping.

    So you’re in favor of using the Terrorist Watch List (which you loath because of its negative cifil liberties implications) to prohibit people from exercising a fundamental enumerated civil right like buying a gun.

    I’m not.

    Further, it will never pass Constitutional muster.

    Next?

  91. #91 by Richard Warnick on January 9, 2013 - 3:23 pm

    The proponents of the terrorist watch list (of whom I am not one) always point out that there is no constitutional right to board a commercial airplane flight. Well, there is no constitutional right to buy a gun, either.

    If you can’t pass a background check, as you well know, there are other options. Go to a gun show, or buy online. Of course, a majority of Americans want background checks for all gun sales.

    Wanna buy a gun? Can’t pass a background check? No problem

    It’s up to you to defend the Tiahrt Amendments. I see no reason for them.

  92. #92 by jdberger on January 9, 2013 - 3:52 pm

    I’m sorry?

    There isn’t a constitutional ritght to buy a gun?

    Expound, please?

    We’ll get back to Tiahrt in a minute….

  93. #93 by Bob S. on January 9, 2013 - 3:56 pm

    Richard,

    Noticed you fail to address the free speech aspects of the background checks.

    But the point you utterly fail at is simple, I asked about the rights of the people and you talked about the object.

    Again.

    Should people have to undergo a background check before they purchase a car? How about a bicycle, or scooter?

    Where do you draw the line at the government approving or restricting what the PEOPLE do?

    You’ve posted many times on this site; according to your logic (since liberty means people can commit crimes and the government’s job is to reduce crime), you should support requiring a background check before every comment or post you make, right?

    I, who already possess one or more firearms, have to undergo a background check every time I purchase one at a retail establishment. You support the idea of making that apply to even private sales — private sales, private sites like this – should the same rules apply?

    And while I’m at it, this is the reason why I say you lie so often.

    because you do

    Well, there is no constitutional right to buy a gun, either.

    Yes, there is a constitutional right to buy a gun !! STOP lying. What part of the “right to keep and bear arms” as confirmed by the Heller Decision and the McDonald Decision don’t you get? Or do you fail to understand even basic property law?????

    If you can’t pass a background check, as you well know, there are other options. Go to a gun show, or buy online. Of course, a majority of Americans want background checks for all gun sales.

    Okay…now explain to me how requiring Joe Q. Public to conduct a background check on a private sale to John D. Thug will stop a criminal from getting a firearm?

    Simply put, it won’t. Either the thug will use a straw buyer or simply pay enough for someone to not conduct the background check. And with 300 million firearms in America you’ll never stop it.

    So you want to pass more laws that won’t stop crime. Real brilliant.

  94. #94 by Richard Warnick on January 9, 2013 - 4:09 pm

    jd and Bob S.–

    There is no constitutional right to buy a gun. Fact. Even Justice Scalia says that. If you are going to dispute reality, then there’s no point.

    “The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

    I just had to renew my Utah driver’s license, so you’re talking to the wrong guy. I had to fill out a form with all personal information, including my Social Security number. I had to present a valid passport, original Social Security card, Army discharge certificate and DD-214, plus two utility bills. I had to pass a vision test. I was photographed. It’s easier to buy a gun.

  95. #95 by cav on January 9, 2013 - 4:16 pm

    Come on BobS. You start you comment pointing to the difference between people and an object. well, there’s undeniable differences between objects – say between machine gun and a bicycle.

    A freak didn’t bust into a school with a bike and kill twenty some odd people. So please. The discussion is directed at what might be done to keep the psychos from tarnishing you and other comparatively sober users with their miss-deeds, and to plain old curb the violence.

    Most citizens do have the right to bear arms, but a truly free market may exercise the option of NOT selling such a product. I want a Jet pack too. But my ownership of same might conflict with drone or airline traffic, so I’m out.

  96. #96 by jdberger on January 9, 2013 - 4:17 pm

    Could you please point to the specific language in where Justice Scalia states that there isn’t a Constitutional right to buy a gun, please?

    I’m pretty familiar with the Heller decision and I seem to have missed that language in the decision.

  97. #97 by Richard Warnick on January 9, 2013 - 4:20 pm

    Did that. Sometimes you have to be patient until I finish writing a comment. ;-)

  98. #98 by jdberger on January 9, 2013 - 4:32 pm

    RIchard, I don’t think that means what you think it does.

    All constitutional rights have some restrictions. Fire in a crowded theater, slander, libel, pornography, sedition, etc. It doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

    Beside your interpretation, do you have anything else that supports your assertion that purchase isn’t a core part of the Constitutional right?

    Like for instance, another Court decision?

    The plaintiffs challenge only the City’s ban on firing ranges, so our first question is whether range training is categorically unprotected by the Second Amendment. Heller and McDonald suggest to the contrary. The Court emphasized in both cases that the “central component” of the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for defense of self, family, and home. Heller, 554 U.S. at 599; McDonald, 130 S.Ct. at 3048. The right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use; the core right wouldn’t mean much without the training and practice that make it effective. Several passages in Heller support this understanding.

    From Ezell v. Chicago http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1573261.html

  99. #99 by cav on January 9, 2013 - 4:46 pm

    jdberger.

    This is almost periphal to the discussion, but it is very much a part of your focus, and very much a part of the route forward. Law suits, and the clarification that comes from the judgments that follow.

    I guess I’m for more law suits in this area. Sue gun makers, Sue gun sellers. Sue ammo manufacturers. Sue the NRA. Let the judges sort it out..

  100. #100 by Richard Warnick on January 9, 2013 - 4:49 pm

    jd wrote:

    Beside your interpretation, do you have anything else that supports your assertion that purchase isn’t a core part of the Constitutional right?

    What about the Second Amendment itself, which says nothing about a right to buy a gun?

  101. #101 by jdberger on January 9, 2013 - 4:50 pm

    Sue them under what theory of law, Cav?

    “Your Honor, the item worked exactly as designed, therefore we ask for summary judgment”.

    ??

  102. #102 by jdberger on January 9, 2013 - 4:54 pm

    Richard? What about the First Amendment which is silent on whether you’re allowed to read a newspaper?

    Or the Fourth which is silent on whether cops, marshalls, agents or grandmothers are prohibited from unreasonable searches. It doesn’t even mention computers. Does that mean they’re exempt? Or not covered?

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”

    Admit it – you’re just trolling, now, aren’t you?

  103. #103 by Richard Warnick on January 9, 2013 - 4:59 pm

    jd–

    The “right to keep and bear arms” applies to members of a “well-regulated militia.” There is no right to buy guns.

    N.J. Court Says Americans Have No Right To Buy Handguns
    Court upholds ban on handgun sales to people under 21

  104. #104 by jdberger on January 9, 2013 - 5:04 pm

    Nice article. It looks like there’s a circuit split, then.

    An interesting note – I had dinner with the reporter last month. We were teasing a mutual friend about his decision to buy a Tesla S.

  105. #105 by Richard Warnick on January 9, 2013 - 5:08 pm

    Do you think maybe the NRA leadership could back off their “guns everywhere all the time” position? It’s not even popular with NRA members.

  106. #106 by cav on January 9, 2013 - 5:16 pm

    What the Tesla S wasn’t equipped with laser weaponry?

    Pure trollery

  107. #107 by Jdberger on January 9, 2013 - 5:36 pm

    Richard, I’m unfamiliar with that stance coming from the NRA in any sort of press release, article or court filing. I have, however seen the gun control groups characterize the NRA’s position as such.

    If you ave other information, I’d love to see it.
    ——

    Yes, Cav. Apparently only British cars come with optional machine-guns.

  108. #108 by cav on January 9, 2013 - 5:49 pm

    When will berserk psychopathic murdering types get to utilize technologies that are not so passe as those oily gunz? I’m thinking something along the joy-stick ‘guided’ ‘death-ray’, replete with all of the spun-off connectives of the ‘Iron shield’ and other such taxpayer investments?

    The present is getting past tense fast. The market needs to at least try to keep up.

  109. #109 by Bob S. on January 9, 2013 - 7:09 pm

    Richard,

    Skillman concluded that while the Second Amendment doesn’t apply, state law and precedent nevertheless required that Dubov receive more due process than he did.

    That is from your link about there is no right to purchase a firearm, right?

    Unfortunately that article was written before the 2nd Amendment was incorporated under the McDonald Decision.

    And in case you’ve forgotten my favorite Amendment — apparently you have — here is the text of the 9th Amendment again.

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    So, yes there is a Constitutional right to purchase firearms.

    Cav,

    Yes there is a difference between an object and a person. Without a doubt there is a difference, wish we could keep the discussion on that subject.

    The discussion is directed at what might be done to keep the psychos from tarnishing you and other comparatively sober users with their miss-deeds, and to plain old curb the violence.

    So if there is a discussion about what to do about the psychos; why do the people like Richard focus on banning the object?

    Why not talk about increasing mental health screening? Increasing funding for mental health institutions, working to improve screening for people with the potential to harm others?

    There isn’t. They don’t want to talk about the people, they want to ban the object.

    How much time, digital ink and pixels have been devoted to the subject of SSRIs and the link to mass homicides?

    Not much but we have thousands of people clamoring for me to turn in my pistol that holds 15 rounds.

    The major issue I have with the person/object dichotomy is it bypasses the important discussion about rights.

    Should the right to keep and bear arms — own and carry a piece of property — be given the same protection as the right to free speech?

    Let’s use the classic “Fire in a theater” example. Most people like Richard claim ‘ you can’t yell fire in a theater’ — and they are wrong.

    It is accurate to say you can not falsely yell fire — that is against the law, a legal restriction on free speech. Just like you can not murder someone with a firearm is a legal restriction on the right to keep and bear arms.

    What the antis want to do is make everyone wear a gag all the time because someone broke the law by yelling fire. Or get a background check before they have a conversation at home, be subjected to a licensing scheme to blog or comment on blogs.

    How does that make sense?

  110. #110 by Richard Warnick on January 9, 2013 - 11:52 pm

    jd–

    Tell me where and when the NRA wants to ban firearms. If you can’t give me an example, then their position is what I said it is.

    Bob S.–

    There is no constitutional right to purchase firearms, any more than there is a right to purchase anything. Rights are inherent in the individual, therefore no one can claim a “right” that requires others to do anything – such as sell guns.

    I’m glad that the Obama administration is at least promising to introduce some sanity to our gun-crazed politics. Let’s see if they can deliver!

  111. #111 by Bob S. on January 10, 2013 - 4:29 am

    Richard,

    Please tell me how the 9th Amendment does not protect a right to purchase property?

    You are right in that rights are inherent, but the Constitution though the bill of rights spell out some rights that are specifically protected (right to keep and bear arms and free speech for example) then clearly and distinctly says that other rights not mentioned are reserved to the people.

    In case you’ve forgotten your civics lessons of decades ago, the Constitution is a document that limits the power of the government. It allows infringement on some rights (income tax for example) IF the government is granted that power.

  112. #112 by Richard Warnick on January 10, 2013 - 10:40 am

    The right of militiamen to keep and bear arms 223 years ago does not equate to a right of anyone to buy a gun at Wal-Mart today. That’s nonsense. They don’t have to sell it to you. If you don’t pass a background check, they are prohibited from selling it to you.

  113. #113 by Bob S. on January 10, 2013 - 10:44 am

    Richard,

    I am sure you are an expert in everything under the sun including constitutional law but I’m a stubborn person.

    Could you, just for a moment, put aside your colossal ego that expects me to believe your every repeated word, and provide some evidence that supports your statements?

  114. #114 by Richard Warnick on January 10, 2013 - 11:43 am

    Bob S.–

    Or you could show me why you believe there is a constitutional right to buy (as opposed to keep and bear) arms.

  115. #115 by Bob S. on January 10, 2013 - 11:57 am

    Richard,

    Since you have OneUtah Reading Comprehension Syndrome (a nearly complete and utter failure to comprehend anything that doesn’t fit in your world view) I’ll run through it once again.

    Let’s start at the beginning, the Constitution isn’t a list of the Rights people have but rather a short list of the powers the Federal Government has. If it isn’t listed as a power there or it can not be traced back to a power listed there, then the government can’t do it.

    First off we have the 2nd Amendment. Inherent in the right to own something is the right to purchase it.

    Then we have the 5th Amendment

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

    I know you have difficulty but if property wasn’t protected then the government could take it with out having to provide just compensation.

    Then we have the 9th Amendment.

    Again, I’ll copy the text

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    That means we enjoy rights not listed in the Constitution and the Federal Government can not abridge those rights.

    Now…I’ve answered this several times, could you try to provide evidence once?

    Just once…it isn’t too much to ask from some as expert in all things as yourself is it?

  116. #116 by Richard Warnick on January 10, 2013 - 12:17 pm

    I’m not an expert. I’m just more versed in common sense because I’m not overcome by ideological bias.

    Gail Collins:

    The subject of guns turns Congress into a twilight zone. People who are perfectly happy to let the government wiretap phones go nuts when the government wants to keep track of weapons permits. A guy who stands up in the House and defends the torture of terror suspects will nearly faint with horror at the prospect of depriving someone on the watch list of the right to purchase a pistol.

    Our Constitution is written in English. There is no right to buy guns. It’s crazy to argue that someone on the terrorist watch list ought to have a constitutional right to purchase an assault rifle.

  117. #117 by Shane on January 10, 2013 - 12:45 pm

    “Let’s start at the beginning, the Constitution isn’t a list of the Rights people have but rather a short list of the powers the Federal Government has. If it isn’t listed as a power there or it can not be traced back to a power listed there, then the government can’t do it.”

    It is amazing that you managed to get every single part of this wrong immediately after mentioning reading comprehension failure.

    The Constitution is is not a list of the governments powers but but a guideline of how the government is constructed followed by certain limitations on the government. It no more lists all the governments powers than it lists all the peoples rights. It is an itemized social contract cribbed from John Locke.

    “First off we have the 2nd Amendment. Inherent in the right to own something is the right to purchase it.”

    It isn’t even first among amendments you pathetic mental midget. The fucking name “second amendment” could clue you into this if you weren’t functioning on a below room temp IQ. Jesus H on a pogo stick is it possible to be this stupid?

    “Then we have the 5th Amendment”

    Because back when the constitution was written they hadn’t yet invented the numbers “3″ or “4″!

    Yes, I fully realize you are attempting to list what you think is relevant. That just underlines the shallowness of your comprehension.

    In order to actually understand anything about the subject you so stubbornly refuse to be educated on, you would need to actually consider the history of the document, the authors, the reasons for it, their inspiration, and their method. Several articles linked elsewhere here have attempted to do that.

    http://www.oneutah.org/republicans/the-second-amendment-is-not-an-individual-right-and-has-nothing-to-do-with-gun-ownership/

    On the plus side, you have shown yourself to be a brewski caliber (excuse my little joke) dipshit, and not worth answering….

  118. #118 by Bob S. on January 10, 2013 - 12:49 pm

    Richard,

    YOU still haven’t provided any evidence to support your claim.

    Logical fallacy of proof by vigorous assertion will not do change my mind no matter how many times you repeat it.

    I just assumed you were an expert on it since you offered nothing to support your contention.

    Once again…can you do it or not?

  119. #119 by jdberger on January 10, 2013 - 1:44 pm

    Richard Warnick :jd–
    Tell me where and when the NRA wants to ban firearms. If you can’t give me an example, then their position is what I said it is.

    I love your ultimatum.

    The NRA opposes the sale of firearms to children, felons, people demonstrated to be mentally incompetent, etc. How’s that?

  120. #120 by Richard Warnick on January 10, 2013 - 1:50 pm

    True or false: If I am over 18, and can pass a background check, does the U.S. Constitution require Wal-Mart to sell me a gun if I want to buy one?

  121. #121 by Bob S. on January 10, 2013 - 1:52 pm

    Shane is getting desperate to end the discussion; you can tell because he is resorting to name calling :)

    I made an argument and stated my case, 1,2,3 or First, then….a normal grammatical construction.

    There are clause in the Constitution that lets it create laws and regulations but ONLY to the extent needed to enforce or act on the powers listed in it.

    Time and time again I’ve cited evidence, court decisions, and legal arguments sir, and you provide what?

  122. #122 by Richard Warnick on January 10, 2013 - 1:58 pm

    jd–

    I said the NRA supports guns everywhere all the time.

    Where and when does the NRA want to ban firearms? Bars? Churches? Schools? Presidential appearances?

    Please link to their position.

    Thanks.

  123. #123 by jdberger on January 10, 2013 - 2:33 pm

    Richard Warnick :True or false: If I am over 18, and can pass a background check, does the U.S. Constitution require Wal-Mart to sell me a gun if I want to buy one?

    True. Individual retailers have the “right to refuse service”, though they better have an articulable (sp) reason.

    If you disagree, I’d be interested in cites in opposition.

  124. #124 by Shane on January 10, 2013 - 2:36 pm

    Another possibility is snark, to prove a point.

    That you you use a grammatical construction, does not change that it is not the first. My point is that to understand the document you can’t cut it up into pieces, nor divorce it from context. Again, it is not a limit on government, any more than it is a limit on rights. It is a social contract in explicit form. But we went over this. The last time you showed your face to scream about how people are coming to take your guns. In between then and now they actually loosened gun laws in several states, and a couple thousand people where killed.

    As a social contract, it explains what we the people gain from organizing ourselves, and what we give up. The amendments are nothing more and nothing less than those things agreed to at the time of writing that we would both surrender and protect. They are also subject to revision. As is the constitution. This is because rights are also subject to the same, because those rights exist within a social contract.

    What would you like me to provide? I would offer a semester on the politics of Locke and those who influenced him and a semester on the history of political thought and social contract theory, but you can’t even be bothered to be honest. Educate yourself? Laughable.

    Evidence? Several of the members of the continetal congress site Locke, but that is hardly a wild idea, since he is perhaps one of the five most influencial thinkers of the enlightenment.

    Legal argument? The constitution you insist on quoting piecemeal allows for itself to be changed if the will of the governed from whence it derives its power so choose.

    Court decisions? Every court decision reguarding ownership or possesion have guns that I have ever read or heard of affirms that the right may be regulated.

    The NRA is wrong, and remains wrong, ad is suffering a huge political opinion change because of their childish statements after Sandy Hook. And not only does the public agree, not only do most gun owners agree, most NRA members agree: We need better gun regulations.

    We will either see better regulations, or continue to kill ourselves en mass. It is that simple. Your insistence, with the NRAs, that more guns solve the problem is simply disproven by all the facts at hand. Austrailia, Israel, Germany… Even Mexico is proof of the reality if you simply notice the simple single obvious piece of evidence that you are not capable of looking for.

    Anyway, it is good to see that you remain obstinate in the face of reality. Have fun with that.

  125. #125 by jdberger on January 10, 2013 - 2:40 pm

    Richard Warnick :jd–
    I said the NRA supports guns everywhere all the time.
    Where and when does the NRA want to ban firearms? Bars? Churches? Schools? Presidential appearances?
    Please link to their position.
    Thanks.

    Citizens can be disarmed within controlled secured areas. It’s specified as “sensitive places” in Heller.

    Whether they are or aren’t is a function of the controlling authority. For instance, in California, with a concealed carry permit I can carry inside a bar, school, police station, courthouse but not a post office, federal courthouse, etc.

    Airline pilots can carry on airplanes (they’re citizens). So can FBI agents (they’re required to do so).

  126. #126 by jdberger on January 10, 2013 - 2:44 pm

    Shane :We will either see better regulations, or continue to kill ourselves en mass. It is that simple. Your insistence, with the NRAs, that more guns solve the problem is simply disproven by all the facts at hand. Austrailia, Israel, Germany… Even Mexico is proof of the reality if you simply notice the simple single obvious piece of evidence that you are not capable of looking for.
    Anyway, it is good to see that you remain obstinate in the face of reality. Have fun with that.

    How is Mexico a demonstration that better regulations will decrease people being killed with guns?

  127. #127 by Richard Warnick on January 10, 2013 - 2:49 pm

    jd–

    But what is the NRA position? Do they agree that at certain places and times, there ought to be no firearms allowed?

  128. #128 by Bob S. on January 10, 2013 - 2:52 pm

    Shane,

    I never claimed the 2nd Amendment was first. I offered it up first in my assertion that there is a Constitutional right to purchase a firearm.

    Arguing about the order of the amendments is a strawman argument designed to hide the fact you have not (Nor has Richard) provided evidence to the contrary.

    What limits the federal government is not a limit on its power to act, but the limited range of objects entrusted to its care—the enumerated powers of government. The powers not delegated to the federal government nor forbidden to the states in the Constitution (e.g., ex post facto laws, bills of attainder, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts) are reserved to the states. These are the police powers, which are generally described as the power to regulate the health, safety, welfare and morals of the citizens of the states.

    http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2011&month=09

    The power to limit purchase of property is not within the purview of the Government, except for those powers clearly listed in the Constitution.

    Legal argument? The constitution you insist on quoting piecemeal allows for itself to be changed if the will of the governed from whence it derives its power so choose.

    Absolutely correct and if you and others want to amend the Constitution to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, go for it. Try it.

    I may quote the Constitution piecemeal but at least I cite evidence. You offer nothing but your own opinion.

    And lastly, at least Sir, I’m dealing with reality. I begin to doubt your connection to it.

  129. #129 by Richard Warnick on January 10, 2013 - 4:09 pm

    Unhinged Tactical Response CEO Threatens to ‘Start Killing People’ Over Obama’s Gun Control

    “Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control,” Yeager explained in his video message. “Fuck that.”

    “I’m telling you that if that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot. I’m not putting up with it. You shouldn’t put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you’re going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle’s clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight.”

    The CEO concluded: “I’m not fucking putting up with this. I’m not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I’m not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.”

    Full freakout mode.

  130. #130 by Shane Smith on January 10, 2013 - 4:26 pm

    Damn it Richard I was just posting that…

  131. #131 by jdberger on January 10, 2013 - 4:44 pm

    Reporter advocates killing of top US Government officials if they don’t enact “gun control”. Threatens to kill gun owners.
    http://abetteriowa.desmoinesregister.com/2012/12/30/kaul-nation-needs-a-new-agenda-on-guns/

    • Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.

    • Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.

    I’d suggest that your side is a little crazier than ours.

  132. #132 by jdberger on January 10, 2013 - 4:46 pm

    Richard Warnick :jd–
    But what is the NRA position? Do they agree that at certain places and times, there ought to be no firearms allowed?

    See above.

    Where you see the NRA challenging those laws, you can assume that they disagree. (How’s that for a metric?)

  133. #133 by K Mac on January 16, 2013 - 3:30 pm

    *It should be noted that Gary Kleck has refused to defend his study ever since it was published.”

    Oh really? Then who the heck wrote this:

    http://www.saf.org/journal/11/kleckfinal.htm

  134. #134 by Cliff Lyon on January 16, 2013 - 4:59 pm

    K Mac,

    Thanks for finding this. I searched and searched and never found this. I will check it out and respond.

    ITMT, I am disturbed and suspicious by the fact that there is not date on this nor and reference back to the source. Not to mention the fact that it has been published on an especially amateurish website with no About page or search function.

    On the other hand, the Second Amendment Foundation is not a registered as such in Washington, lists no board of directors or editorial staff.

    Why is such and important document virtually invisible on the web?

  135. #135 by K Mac on January 17, 2013 - 2:33 am

    I don’t understand. The sfa.org home page contains all of that information. The “About” tabs are on the left. The FAQ section lists founder, board of directors, publications etc.
    What are you looking for?

    As for the supposed Kleck piece, I would be curious as to what you find out.

  136. #136 by Cliff Lyon on January 17, 2013 - 6:46 am

    K Mac,

    OK, I read as much of the paper as I could stand. I found it to be tedious (as most such academic defenses are) and unconvincing.

    Kleck, does not defend his survey but merely, employs same criticisms advanced against his survey to dismiss the same as insufficient.

    Example (and there are soo many): “In direct contradiction of scientific principles, the plausibility of speculation commonly relies on the absence of relevant evidence, since this is what makes it impossible to decisively rebut the speculation. With respect to both good research and bad, there is no upper limit on the amount of speculative criticism that can be directed at the work. Indeed, precisely because it is speculative, this sort of critique is just as easily applied to good research as to bad. ”

    So K Mac, I must restate my claim that Kleck does not *defend* the methodology of his estimate of 760,000 to 3.6 million but simply claims in effect, that no other survey is better.”

    That is NOT a defense, it is just banter.

  137. #137 by Cliff Lyon on January 17, 2013 - 7:13 am

    K Mac,

    I just found this response from Cook and Hemenway which supports my assertion above: “More generally we argue that any screening method applied to the general population method to measure the prevalence of a rare event (such as self-defense with a gun) will
    tend to generate more false positives than false negatives. This fact is accommodated in medical screening methods but usually ignored in the methodology of social surveys.” http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1997/04/29/dgu-00032/

    And I think this is the point. There is no reliable methodology to measure DGU’s by surveying gun owners as well demonstrated over decades of similar surveys conducted in the field of health and medicine.

  138. #138 by Bob S. on January 17, 2013 - 8:38 am

    But Cliff,

    If a Defensive Gun Use will save just one life, shouldn’t we do everything in our power to make that possible?

  139. #139 by jdberger on January 17, 2013 - 11:19 am

    Cliff Lyon :K Mac,
    Thanks for finding this. I searched and searched and never found this. I will check it out and respond.
    ITMT, I am disturbed and suspicious by the fact that there is not date on this nor and reference back to the source. Not to mention the fact that it has been published on an especially amateurish website with no About page or search function.
    On the other hand, the Second Amendment Foundation is not a registered as such in Washington, lists no board of directors or editorial staff.
    Why is such and important document virtually invisible on the web?

    You should try out this new thing called “Google”. You just type out what you’re looking for into the little space and it finds stuff for you. Like the 990s of SAF, for instance. Or support for Kleck’s research. Or the long running debate he had with Garen Wintemute and Cook. Or even the National Institute of Justice research that supports Kleck’s findings…

    Yup – that new-fangled “Google” thing sure is neat-o.

  140. #140 by K Mac on January 17, 2013 - 12:40 pm

    Cliff Lyon,

    I understand.
    BTW did Hemenway come up with what they think is a more reasonable number of DGU? … or did they just conclude that any estimate is useless?

    I would submit that Kleck doesn’t need it to be in the millions to make his point. Even a number in the 100,000′s or even high 10,000′s would be a strong point in favor of the life-saving features of civilian gun ownership.

    K Mac

  141. #141 by Richard Warnick on January 17, 2013 - 12:56 pm

    More Americans killed in gun deaths than in terrorist attacks

    In 2010, 13,186 people died in terrorist attacks worldwide; in that same year, in America alone, 31,672 people lost their lives in gun-related deaths, according to numbers complied by Tom Diaz – until recently, a senior analyst at the Violence Policy Center.

    While the United States government has invested more than half a trillion dollars on homeland security since the September 11,, 2001 attacks, according to the Congressional Budget Office, there has been practically no effort to deter gun violence.

    “I think it stems from the fact that most Americans of good will simply do not know how many of their fellow [citizens] are killed every day and every week by guns in America,” Diaz told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour in an interview Tuesday.

    Diaz was a gun enthusiast and a member of the NRA, who changed his position after he interviewed gun victims and their families while working on gun legislation as a Congressional staffer. He now is now a proponent for gun safety laws.

    Government research on gun related deaths has diminished over the years and become more difficult to access, which Diaz claimed has been deliberately engineered by the gun lobby.

    “[The NRA and the gun industry] tried to eliminate the unit in the Centers for Disease Control that did this research and then what they really did is just cut their funding out.” Diaz also said those pro-gun groups have stopped the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms from revealing data to the public.

    Despite the gun lobby’s efforts, the majority of Americans support some type of gun control, according to the latest Pew Research Center poll. 82% favor background checks, 55% favor a ban on assault-style weapons, and 54% favor a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips.

    Seems like the Gun Lobby is afraid somebody will do definitive research on firearms-related deaths in America. I wonder why.

  142. #142 by McNeil Hughes on January 18, 2013 - 6:33 am

    It doesn’t matter, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed

    I’m very happy obama is taking this on, he’s destroyed himself, part of that arrogant narcissistic personality disorder thing which i’m sure he on drugs for

  143. #143 by K Mac on January 20, 2013 - 1:03 pm

    Cliff Lyon,
    The information from Mr. Diaz conveniently omits the fact that two-thirds of the “gun-related deaths” to which he refers are suicides. He nevertheless includes them in his total figure of “gun violence.” That is tremendously misleading, but no surprise since without doing so, his “point” would be lost because the terrorist victim number cited is higher than the American homicide total.
    The whole point is meaning less anyway, because the there is no reason to compare such numbers, and also “terrorist attacks” ARE also murders.

    Why the propaganda?

  144. #144 by jdberger on January 20, 2013 - 9:52 pm

    Richard Warnick :
    More Americans killed in gun deaths than in terrorist attacks

    In 2010, 13,186 people died in terrorist attacks worldwide; in that same year, in America alone, 31,672 people lost their lives in gun-related deaths, according to numbers complied by Tom Diaz – until recently, a senior analyst at the Violence Policy Center.
    While the United States government has invested more than half a trillion dollars on homeland security since the September 11,, 2001 attacks, according to the Congressional Budget Office, there has been practically no effort to deter gun violence.
    “I think it stems from the fact that most Americans of good will simply do not know how many of their fellow [citizens] are killed every day and every week by guns in America,” Diaz told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour in an interview Tuesday.
    Diaz was a gun enthusiast and a member of the NRA, who changed his position after he interviewed gun victims and their families while working on gun legislation as a Congressional staffer. He now is now a proponent for gun safety laws.
    Government research on gun related deaths has diminished over the years and become more difficult to access, which Diaz claimed has been deliberately engineered by the gun lobby.
    “[The NRA and the gun industry] tried to eliminate the unit in the Centers for Disease Control that did this research and then what they really did is just cut their funding out.” Diaz also said those pro-gun groups have stopped the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms from revealing data to the public.

    Despite the gun lobby’s efforts, the majority of Americans support some type of gun control, according to the latest Pew Research Center poll. 82% favor background checks, 55% favor a ban on assault-style weapons, and 54% favor a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips.

    Seems like the Gun Lobby is afraid somebody will do definitive research on firearms-related deaths in America. I wonder why.

    Right – because the only people doing solid research are from the Government….

    When did you start taking the Government’s word on controversial issues, Richard?

    Or is only when they’re interested in curtailing those Civil Rights you don’t agree with.

    The Bill of Rights isn’t a buffet, Richard. You don’t get to pick and choose.

  145. #145 by Cliff Lyon on January 21, 2013 - 11:04 am

    JdBerger,

    Your baseless premise that that federal agency research is somehow disqualified and/or more so because the issues are controversial, demonstrates only your strong anti-government bias.

    As per your characterization of gun ownership as a civil rights issue is a misuse of the term and incongruous with the operative “Militia part” of 2A.

    Perhaps you would grace us with your thinking on how the “well regulated militia” relates to “civil rights.”

    Gay marriage is a civil right. Access to public education is a civil right.

    Connect these dots JD; the word militia appears in the Constitution 5 (FIVE) times and, as you know, in the Second Amendment.

    Since you are a Constitutional scholar, I would be interested in your view of THAT FACT AND HOW IT RELATES TO 2A?

    May I suggest reading this to review use of the word MILITIA in the Constitution. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/25/1171716/-The-Second-Amendment-Has-Nothing-to-Do-with-Gun-Ownership

    IF you can do that, you maybe you should go away. Loving guns is does NOT qualify as scholarship on anything.

  146. #146 by Richard Warnick on January 21, 2013 - 11:11 am

    jd–

    Nobody, nobody, nobody is talking about taking away your rights (or your precious gun). Sometimes paranoia is just paranoia. “The precious” is safe.

  147. #147 by Bob S. on January 21, 2013 - 11:47 am

    Cliff,

    It looks like your reading comprehension failure syndrome is acting up. Either that or you are trying to set up a straw man argument. Or both.

    All J.D. said was the federal government isn’t the only organization doing ‘solid research’. Here is an idea; if you want research done, pay for it yourself. Gather up some friends and pay for it using crowd source financiing.

    I’ll let Justice Scalia answer about the civil rights:

    he Scalia majority invokes much historical material to support its finding that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals; more precisely, Scalia asserts in the Court’s opinion that the “people” to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same “people” who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection: “‘The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.’ United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings….”

    So explain how the people in the 1st and 4th are different from the people in the 2nd, eh?

  148. #148 by Cliff Lyon on January 22, 2013 - 12:28 pm

    Hey Bob S,

    I would just like to see ANY of you 2A “experts” give us your thoughts on the militia word that appears 5 times in the Constitution.

    I find it conveniently curious none of you “experts” have any thoughts on the matter.

  149. #149 by Bob S. on January 22, 2013 - 1:02 pm

    Cliff,

    Because the discussion isn’t about the militia; it is about the individual right to keep and bear arms apart from the militia.

    10 USC § 311 – Militia: composition and classes clearly shows the militia is composed of several elements. In case you don’t want to click on the link (so much trouble I know, right)

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    So I think even you can agree that the militia consists of all males 17 to 45– those not in the Armed Forces (Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force Coast Guard) or the Guard/Reserves are part of the ‘unorganized militia.

    Got it so far? I can go back over it again if you are confused, okay.

    Now given that ageism is illegal and so is gender bias; we can probably count on the ‘unorganized militia’ eventually expanding.

    Now the part that many people seem to miss when they talk about the Federal powers over the militia. I’ll bold it for you.

    “Provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions.
    Also to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority for training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

    Those words ” such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States” modifies the previous part — the U.S. Federal government is responsible for arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia when it has been called into service. The rest of the time that is up to the State and the PEOPLE. People who are expected to show up for militia service with firearms functionally equivalent to what the regular forces use.

    I’m not an expert on this, just an average guy giving my opinion but even the Miller Decision backs this up — Miller was found guilty of tax evasion because the sawed off shotgun had no ‘reasonable relationship’ to what the militia would use.

    This link http://constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm provides some fascinating reading, especially the parts about ‘the body of the people’ and how those words were viewed.

  150. #150 by jdberger on January 22, 2013 - 1:14 pm

    Richard Warnick :jd–
    Nobody, nobody, nobody is talking about taking away your rights (or your precious gun). Sometimes paranoia is just paranoia. “The precious” is safe.

    Then why do they keep using the word, “ban”?

    If the same restrictions on gun ownership were proposed for other rights, like abortion or same sex marraige, you all would be screaming bloody murder.

    The Bill of RIghts isn’t a buffet. You don’t get to pick and choose.
    ***
    Cliff, that Daily Kos article would be wonderful if it hadn’t been completely refuted by both the DC Circuit Court and the US Supreme Court. EVERY SINGLE Supreme Court Justice agreed that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to arms. Every one.

    But what do they know…?

  151. #151 by Richard Warnick on January 22, 2013 - 2:14 pm

    Justice Scalia (the man wearing a black robe with the funny Renaissance hat at yesterday’s inauguration) says that a ban on the manufacture and sale of mass-murder weapons and large-capacity magazines passes constitutional muster.

    There is no proposal that I’m aware of to take one gun away from anybody who can pass a background check (i.e. law-abiding non-insane Americans).

  152. #152 by Richard Warnick on January 22, 2013 - 2:15 pm

  153. #153 by Bob S. on January 22, 2013 - 2:47 pm

    Richard,

    Instead of saying what Scalia said, why don’t you show us ?

    And while you are finding that, I would strongly suggest a refresher on how the court system works.

  154. #154 by Bob S. on January 22, 2013 - 2:50 pm

    In Texas, it is against the law to carry a firearm on campus. How did that law work to protect the college?

  155. #155 by Richard Warnick on January 22, 2013 - 3:03 pm

    Bob S.–

    I provided the link to Scalia’s opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller twice already. Here’s another source:

    Conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday left open the possibility that some types of guns could be regulated by the government, such as assault weapons capable of holding 100 rounds of ammunition.

    “What the opinion in Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases, what limitations upon the right to keep and bear arms are permissible,” Scalia said on “Fox News Sunday,” referring to the 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that protected the right to possess firearms.

    Facts still coming in regarding today’s school shooting, so there aren’t any answers yet to a lot of questions.

  156. #156 by Bob S. on January 22, 2013 - 3:18 pm

    Richard,

    You are claiming that Scalia says that a ban on the manufacture and sale of mass-murder weapons and large-capacity magazines passes constitutional muster. — I dispute that he says that.

    I would like you to show me the exact words where you get that. It is almost as if you go out of your way to provide evidence supporting your views.

    Makes a person suspicious if the evidence really supports what you say.

    Your own quote doesn’t even support what you say

    “What the opinion in Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases, what limitations upon the right to keep and bear arms are permissible,” Scalia said

    The court wasn’t asked to determine constitutionality of those laws in Heller — so it didn’t.

    Try again, this time with evidence.

  157. #157 by Richard Warnick on January 22, 2013 - 3:44 pm

    Bob S.–

    The Gun Lobby’s position: “OMG they are taking away our rights!”

    Justice Scalia’s position: Banning certain types of weapons is constitutionally permissible.

  158. #158 by Bob S. on January 22, 2013 - 3:58 pm

    Richard,

    PLEASE USE HIS WORDS. NOT YOURS.

    Sorry to yell but I find your repeated insistence with no evidence to be very frustrating. Show me the words that say what you claim.

    Are you claiming that selling/buying property without government approval isn’t a taking away my rights?

    Are you saying that having to submit fingerprints, photographs, background checks prior to exercising a right is not taking away my rights?

  159. #159 by Richard Warnick on January 22, 2013 - 4:16 pm

    Bob S.–

    Here you go (for the third time, emphasis added to help you read and understand):

    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

    Just for clarity, note that Justice Scalia wrote “longstanding prohibitions… or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” “Laws” being in addition to and separate from “longstanding prohibitions.”

    Am I finally cutting through the Gun Lobby propaganda? Once again, bear in mind that this was written by the most right-wing justice on the most right-wing U.S. Supreme Court in a century.

  160. #160 by Bob S. on January 22, 2013 - 5:13 pm

    Richard,

    This is the first time you’ve shown his words in the opinion; which was what I asked for. So you are lying when you say for the third time.

    And once again you prove you focus on the wrong thing – or at least ignore what doesn’t suit you.

    Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment,

    The reason nothing in the Heller decision should cast doubt on those long standing prohibitions is simple — they weren’t being considered !!!

    You are way reaching to read into it what you say.

    Banning certain types of weapons is constitutionally permissible.

    He talks about possession of firearms by prohibited persons — mentally ill and felons.

    He talks about prohibited places — ‘in sensitive places”

    He talks about imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

    The closest he gets is laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

    The focus there is the ‘commercial sale of arms’ not the types of arms. Conditions and qualifications — things like you have to be 18 for long guns or 21 for pistols, you have to submit to a background check for commercial sales but not for private sales

    The federal government can prohibit federally licensed dealers from selling handguns to people under the age of 21, the 5th Circuit ruled.
    “The present ban is consistent with a longstanding tradition of targeting select groups’ ability to access and to use arms for the sake of public safety,” Judge Edward Prado wrote for a three-judge panel.

    “We have demonstrated that this federal scheme is not a salient outlier in the historical landscape of gun control,” the 41-page opinion states. “And unlike the D.C. ban in Heller, this ban does not disarm an entire community, but instead prohibits commercial handgun sales to 18-to-20-year-olds – a discrete category.

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/26/51708.htm

  161. #161 by Richard Warnick on January 22, 2013 - 8:50 pm

    I previously linked to the Wikipedia article on the Heller decision, which has a synopsis of what Justice Scalia wrote. I’m not as in love with legal mumbo jumbo as some people. The plain meaning is the same. The federal government can regulate and ban private ownership of various types of firearms and magazines. It has in the past, it does so now, and clearly can do so in the future.

  162. #162 by Cliff Lyon on January 23, 2013 - 1:52 am

    Bob S,

    Scalia also agrees in Heller opinion, that gun restrictions are Constitutional.

  163. #163 by Bob S. on January 23, 2013 - 4:31 am

    Cliff & Richard,

    Scalia does not say that some are constitutional; he says this opinion should not cast doubt as to their legality.

    Not the same thing. The legality of those laws, prohibitions and restrictions were not being debated. Much in the same way that Incorporation was not being argued, therefore they didn’t rule on incorporation.

    But Yes some ‘gun restrictions’ are constitutional; you can’t use one to murder – but you can use one in justifiable homicide. You can’t use one to rob someone but you can use one to stop a robbery. You can’t carry a firearm if you are a felon but you have the right to carry one if you aren’t.

  164. #164 by Richard Warnick on January 23, 2013 - 8:52 am

    Bob S.–

    You can’t own a fully automatic weapon. Those are banned, except in special circumstances.

  165. #165 by Bob S. on January 23, 2013 - 8:59 am

    Richard,

    There you go lying again. You are absolutely wrong that I can’t own a fully automatic weapon.

    Form 4 & Additional Requirements
    In order to purchase an NFA firearm, the buyer must complete an ATF Form 5320.4, commonly known as a Form 4. Similar to a Form 4473, filled out for the purchase of a Title I firearm, a Form 4 asks for the buyer and seller’s personal information, including the buyer’s physical home address. In addition, the Form 4 requests a description of the firearm being purchased and confirms that the buyer is not a felon or otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm. Unlike a 4473, the Form 4 contains four additional requirements.

    First, if the buyer is buying a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or a destructive device from a dealer, the buyer must certify in Block 15 of the form that the purchase will comply with local law, and provide a purpose for possessing the NFA firearm. While this may seem like an ominous request, the buyer need only provide a rational purpose for the purchase. Common responses to this question include investment, collecting, or all lawful purposes.

    http://www.firearmslawgroup.com/publications/harris-publications/55-purchasing-class-iii-weapons

    They are not banned, there is no special circumstances required.

    Please either educate yourself as to the laws or stop lying — it has to be either one or the other.

  166. #166 by Richard Warnick on January 23, 2013 - 10:37 am

    Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act bans private ownership of machine guns.

    18 USC § 922

    (a) It shall be unlawful—

    …(4) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, to transport in interstate or foreign commerce any destructive device, machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity;

    …(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—

    …(4) to any person any destructive device, machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity…

  167. #167 by Bob S. on January 23, 2013 - 10:56 am

    Nice Try Sparky.

    In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machinegun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machinegun. As applied to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts 1(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of the superseding indictment are

    DISMISSED.

    U.S. v. Rock Island Armory

    Sorry but that was found to be unconstitutional.

    The law states individuals can not purchase fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 — not that they are banned.

    Why do you insist on lying Richard?

    Federal law strictly regulates machine guns (firearms that fire many rounds of ammunition, without manual reloading, with a single pull of the trigger).

    Among other things, federal law:

    1. requires all machine guns, except antique firearms, not in the U.S. government’s possession to be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF);

    2. bars private individuals from transferring or acquiring machine guns except those lawfully possessed and registered before May 19, 1986;

    3. requires anyone transferring or manufacturing machine guns to get prior ATF approval and register the firearms;

    4. with very limited exceptions, imposes a $200 excise tax whenever a machine gun is transferred;

    5. bars interstate transport of machine guns without ATF approval; and

    6. imposes harsh penalties for machine gun violations, including imprisonment of up to 10 years, a fine of up to $250,000, or both for possessing an unregistered machine gun.

    The lawful transfer of a machine gun generally requires (1) filing a transfer application with ATF, (2) paying a transfer tax, (3) getting ATF approval, and (4) registering the firearm in the transferee’s name. Transferees must pass an extensive criminal background investigation and meet the criteria for possessing firearms under state and federal law. Among those ineligible are felons and people (1) addicted to controlled substances, (2) discharged under dishonorable conditions from the U.S. Armed Forces, or (3) adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution.

    Restrict yes. In my opinion, illegally so but it is the law. But still possible to purchase ‘fully automatic’ weapons today.

  168. #168 by Richard Warnick on January 23, 2013 - 11:09 am

    I said that fully automatic weapons are “banned, except in special circumstances.” That is correct.

  169. #169 by jdberger on January 23, 2013 - 11:18 am

    Richard -why do you insist on continuing this charade? You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. You misapply case law, statutes, even Constitutional prohibitions. You don’t understand guns, their mechanics and physics. You don’t understand gun owners and the gun culture.

    You’re welcome to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

  170. #170 by K Mac on January 23, 2013 - 11:42 am

    Apparently Richard is disowning his previous sentence:

    “You cannot own a fully-automatic weapon.”

    Richard decries legal “mumbo jumbo” perhaps because he relies on equivocation, something which “legal jargon” does not allow for.

  171. #171 by Bob S. on January 23, 2013 - 11:47 am

    Richard,

    Banned has a defined meaning – you aren’t even coming close to it.

    So once again we see you have to twist and distort things to manipulate people.

    Shameful behavior

  172. #172 by Richard Warnick on January 23, 2013 - 12:12 pm

    Bob S.

    A ban is an “An official or legal prohibition.” Look it up yourself.

    The Firearm Owners Protection Act banned civilian ownership or transfer rights of any fully automatic weapon which was not registered as of May 19, 1986. The specific provision of the law is known as the “Hughes Amendment” or the “machine gun ban.”

    jd–

    I don’t care about so-called “gun culture” except when it gets in the way of public safety. Get out of the way, and I can stop caring.

  173. #173 by Bob S. on January 23, 2013 - 12:48 pm

    Richard

    I did look it up.

    1. To prohibit, especially by official decree: The city council banned billboards on most streets. See Synonyms at forbid.

    Can individuals buy fully automatic firearms. Yes. They can. So they are not prohibited.

    You cite the FOPA but forget to mention this part which was not registered as of May 19, 1986.

    So some fully automatic firearms can not be sold to individuals but there are still many that can. It is not a ban.

    You describe something as you like, doesn’t change the basic facts.

    You still haven’t proven that your proposed laws will increase public safety — so maybe you can step out of the way and let those of us who have studied the issue, know the facts and law work on it eh Sparky?

  174. #174 by jdberger on January 23, 2013 - 1:18 pm

    Richard Warnick jd–
    I don’t care about so-called “gun culture” except when it gets in the way of public safety. Get out of the way, and I can stop caring.

    Richard, I’m sorry that the Civil Rights of 200 million Americans make you feel “unsafe”.

    Are there any other fundamental enumerated rights that get you squirrely?

  175. #175 by Richard Warnick on January 23, 2013 - 2:07 pm

    Bob S.–

    You have to use the same definition of “ban” as everybody else. Individuals are banned from buying fully automatic firearms that were not already registered as of May 19, 1986. This is known as the “machine gun ban.”

    It won’t happen anytime soon, but Congress similarly has the power to ban semi-automatic firearms. That’s the point I made, despite all the frantic hand-waving and name-calling from you and jd.

  176. #176 by Bob S. on January 23, 2013 - 2:21 pm

    Richard,

    You have to use the same definitions as everyone else also.

    If you want to say that “Individuals are banned from buying fully automatic firearms that were not already registered as of May 19, 1986.” I’ll agree with you.

    But that is not what you repeatedly said. You said that ‘fully automatic firearms are banned.

    That is like saying “Dogs are banned” then coming back and saying “Pitbulls are banned”. NOT THE SAME THING.

    And you know it. You are deliberately distorting — out right lying in some case- what the law says.

    Please, for the love of all goodness sake Richard. STOP saying that Congress has the power and show me that authority.

    It really is a simple request — proof by vigorous assertion – is not evidence. No matter how many times you claim Congress can, no matter how many times you state your opinion, it doesn’t make it true.

    If it is true, then you should have no problem showing the evidence.

    What section of the Constitution, what law, what court decision gives Congress the power to ban Semi-automatic weapons?

  177. #177 by David L. Dillon on March 28, 2013 - 3:08 pm

    As Kleck says clearly, most DGUs are NOT reported to the police so referencing them is silly. His research relied upon carefully formulated questionnaires and included as a DGU as even a potential victim showing the firearm. I don’t know where you get the WWII stats but apples to oranges. Kleck is NOT a spokesman for the NRA and is an independent liberal democrat Ph.D. researcher in Sociology and Criminology. His finding are balanced and haven’t really been debunked except in the fantasy world of the pro-control group. If you think that the US would be safer if law-abiding citizens were unarmed and unable to defend themselves, you are as stupid as the picture you use to describe gun owners. Shame on you to stereotype! Some of us are highly educated and work in research/sociological/psychology fields.

  178. #178 by fire on April 16, 2013 - 1:35 am

    I find this very amusing:
    so yes he did respond and no, OneUtah is not very accurate lol

    check the link for the published rebuttal of the debunkers and how they were exposed

    *It should be noted that Gary Kleck has refused to defend his study ever since it was published.

    Note to readers: OneUtah is a leading publisher of accurate, trustworthy, legal and scientific information about gun rights, guns, violence, gun violence and the psychology of CCP holders

    http://www.saf.org/journal/11/kleckfinal.htm

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: