Fighting back is the most effective way to reduce violent crime

[TurtleDude]

It is good that there was a study stating that if you are (perceived) vulnerable your more likely to be a victim. Perceived is the key word. In your study a badazz vibe was enough, real or imagined.

another lesson I learned was years ago I was in NYC playing in a big squash tournament on the upper east side. my college GF's family lived up near the west side of Central Park. I was staying with her family during the tournament. after a second round match (IIRC) on saturday I walked through the park to their apartment around four or so in the afternoon. the doorman-who sort of knew me, was a retired cop. He asked how things were and I noted i passed a few guys I figured were mopes. When I described them he said yeah they most likely were. And i noted they didn't hassle me at all. And he said-well you're a tall guy in good shape and you have a squash bag. You could easily have a gun or a bat or something in there. They aren't going to risk one or two of them gettin killed tangling with a guy who looks like a narc (I had longer hair and a beard back in the mid 80s). He said they don't last long if they are stupid.

 

[Rich2018]

another lesson I learned was years ago I was in NYC playing in a big squash tournament on the upper east side. my college GF's family lived up near the west side of Central Park. I was staying with her family during the tournament. after a second round match (IIRC) on saturday I walked through the park to their apartment around four or so in the afternoon. the doorman-who sort of knew me, was a retired cop. He asked how things were and I noted i passed a few guys I figured were mopes. When I described them he said yeah they most likely were. And i noted they didn't hassle me at all. And he said-well you're a tall guy in good shape and you have a squash bag. You could easily have a gun or a bat or something in there. They aren't going to risk one or two of them gettin killed tangling with a guy who looks like a narc (I had longer hair and a beard back in the mid 80s). He said they don't last long if they are stupid.

So you don't need guns, you just need to look like you carry them ?

 

[TurtleDude]

So you don't need guns, you just need to look like you carry them ?

when you are 25 years old 6-1, 180, in really good shape, wearing a army field jacket and look like a narc or a vet, perhaps not. Most people don't look like that, and those who do, aren't usually going to be mugged

 

[Rich2018]

when you are 25 years old 6-1, 180, in really good shape, wearing a army field jacket and look like a narc or a vet, perhaps not. Most people don't look like that, and those who do, aren't usually going to be mugged

So you think they don't need guns ?

 

[Fledermaus]

So you think they don't need guns ?

According to whom?

 

[Linuxcooldude]

No-one is disputing that a 10 year old breaking into your house, and stealing items from your refrigerator, is not against the law
Neither is anyone telling homeowners how to defend their home

What is open to question is the number of claimed "defensive gun uses"
The cited figure was anything from 60k to 2 million per year. With that level of uncertainty, the figures are anything but reliable
Further they don't state if those "defensive gun uses" succeeded or failed to deter/prevent a crime
Lastly, they give no indication of whether the use of a firearm was actually required to achieve the crime deterrent/prevention goal. Specifically whether a result, just as desirable, could not have been achieved without a firearm.

This study was ordered by the CDC and conducted by the The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council.

This study took data from multiple years worth of data for which each year the amount of defensive gun uses varied. We should not expect them to always be the same from year to year.

 

[poppopfox]

Your source is not a peer-reviewed study. They are notes prepared for a meeting. Jens Ludwig is an economist, and Daniel Webster is professor of health policy and management at John Hopkins. Neither are criminologists, unlike John Lott and Gary Kleck.

That doesn't amount to much criticism considering the source. It is very obvious that you haven't the vaguest clue what the "best science" says, since you can't even cite a single peer-reviewed scientific source.

Did you miss the references they cited in the left side panels? Here's a few.

15 Zimring FE. Is gun control likely to reduce violent killings? The University of Chicago Law Review 1968; 35:721–737.

16 Cook PJ. Reducing injury and death rates in robbery. Policy Analysis 1980; 6:21–45.

17 Cook PJ. Robbery violence. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1987; 78:357–376.

18 Sherman LW, Shaw JW, Rogan DP. The Kansas City gun experiment. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, January 1995.

19 Fagan J; Zimring FE; Kim J. Declining homicide in New York City: A tale of two trends. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1998 Summer; 88(4):1277–1323.

Where did you get your scientific researcher's credentials?

 

[Rich2018]

This study was ordered by the CDC and conducted by the The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council.

This study took data from multiple years worth of data for which each year the amount of defensive gun uses varied. We should not expect them to always be the same from year to year.

So if you're so familiar with it:

1. Why the vast range of "defensive gun uses" - is it 60K or 2 million a year ?
Why couldn't the CDC come up with a more accurate number than such an open range ?

2. There's no number of "defensive gun uses" where the gun owner failed - was this just not considered by the CDC ?
Did it assume that in EVERY case, the result was a success for the gun owner ?
Did it assume that in NO cases, did the gun owner fail or was killed ?

3. Did it not collate figures for similar defensive actions that did NOT involve a gun ?

4. In short, of the instances where gun owners claimed a defensive gun use, how can we know whether the gun was necessary ?


Why didn't the CDC answer these questions ?
The lack of data relevant to them, makes the entire study, unreliable.

 

[Fledermaus]

So if you're so familiar with it:

1. Why the vast range of "defensive gun uses" - is it 60K or 2 million a year ?
Why couldn't the CDC come up with a more accurate number than such an open range ?

2. There's no number of "defensive gun uses" where the gun owner failed - was this just not considered by the CDC ?
Did it assume that in EVERY case, the result was a success for the gun owner ?
Did it assume that in NO cases, did the gun owner fail or was killed ?

3. Did it not collate figures for similar defensive actions that did NOT involve a gun ?

4. In short, of the instances where gun owners claimed a defensive gun use, how can we know whether the gun was necessary ?


Why didn't the CDC answer these questions ?
The lack of data relevant to them, makes the entire study, unreliable.

Ask the CDC.