NFR: HB3359 seeks to serialize handgun ammo

[Jon Borcherding]

hey look everyone i can copy and paste random internet facts as well!



"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."

Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection."

Chris, what seems to have escaped your attention is that Kleck critcizes the NCVS for being entirely TOO CONSERVATIVE.
Kleck's estimates are MUCH HIGHER!
If you're going to use Kleck to support your argument, you need to acknowledge his conclusion also!
Try this for some random copy and paste!

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

(Source: Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)

[Chris Puma]

Chris, what seems to have escaped your attention is that Kleck critcizes the NCVS for being entirely TOO CONSERVATIVE.
Kleck's estimates are MUCH HIGHER!
If you're going to use Kleck to support your argument, you need to acknowledge his conclusion also!
Try this for some random copy and paste!

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

(Source: Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)

haha. you got me!

[Dick Warnke]

It seems pretty simple to me. If you don't like guns and don't want anything to do with them...your choice!! But DO NOT!! try to tell me or any other law abiding citizen that we should'nt have the right to own them...plain and simple!! Now lets put this thing to bed!!

[Jon Borcherding]

horrible argument. here's a similar situation where 911 is useless.

what happens hypothetically if someone bad pulls a gun on you when you're walking down the street to rob you. he has the intention of killing you and raping your girlfriend.

A rare situation? Yes.
Unheard of? No.
Do similar situations occur on a daily basis? Yes.
Guns are used to prevent crime at least 295 times every day in America.
So now you can make your choice.
What is your next action?


well by your you logic everyone should carry guns to neutralize the situation? therefore the only way to protect yourself is by arming yourself?

That's a fair question Chris!
In that situation I hope I am carrying and I hope like hell the training kicks in. My logic does NOT dictate that "everyone should carry guns to neutralize the situation". My logic dictates that every law abiding citizen should have the right to defend themselves and their loved ones. If they choose to carry a firearm to do so they should have that right. The govt. should not hinder law abiding citizens from procuring or carrying firearms for the purpose of self defense. The govt. DOES hinder law abiding citizens from exercising that right.
Chris, I'll confess that when I was a young man I believed much like you that there was a simple solution to gun violence and I thought that outlawing handguns would help. I was wrong. There is plenty of evidence that I was wrong and I have changed my position. If you dig deeper in Kleck and Lott you may change also.

JonB

[alpinetrout]

[Chris Puma]

That's a fair question Chris!
In that situation I hope I am carrying and I hope like hell the training kicks in. My logic does NOT dictate that "everyone should carry guns to neutralize the situation". My logic dictates that every law abiding citizen should have the right to defend themselves and their loved ones. If they choose to carry a firearm to do so they should have that right. The govt. should not hinder law abiding citizens from procuring or carrying firearms for the purpose of self defense. The govt. DOES hinder law abiding citizens from exercising that right.
Chris, I'll confess that when I was a young man I believed much like you that there was a simple solution to gun violence and I thought that outlawing handguns would help. I was wrong. There is plenty of evidence that I was wrong and I have changed my position. If you dig deeper in Kleck and Lott you may change also.

JonB

don't get me wrong, i don't believe in outlawing handguns. on the contrary, i don't think there is a simple solution or even if there is a solution at all to preventing gun violence. i just thought that was a weak hypothetical argument.

personally, i rely on street smarts not to get myself in that situation in the first place. i have no idea if all citizens should have the right to conceal a firearm. i personally would never carry a gun because i know i have a short temper and would end up shooting someone who doesn't deserve it.

when i have free time i'm going to read kleck and lott.

[Adam Taylor]

It seems pretty simple to me. If you don't like guns and don't want anything to do with them...your choice!! But DO NOT!! try to tell me or any other law abiding citizen that we should'nt have the right to own them...plain and simple!! Now lets put this thing to bed!!

You should have a right to own them. But a huge responsibility comes with it. Most firearms that hit the streets are not stolen but rather but through other means. You own a gun, lock it up, you lose it report it....and by god I can't see any reason why a law abiding citizen would have an issue with that. Or why by god a law abiding citizen with nothing to hide would have an issue with a background check.

But hell let's have a shotgun that will shoot 300 plus rounds...only thing that is designed for is killing. And living in Washington or CT we are not at war. Our troops oversees...by god give them every tool to win but do not tell me mom and pop need that gun either. And if they do, then no amount of firepower will make this a great place to live.

[Kent Lufkin]

Hahahahaha!

K