of most DGU's being chock full of criminals acts, can you? So, it's just your usual "hidden criminal" crap.
And both incident's are legitimate DGU's no matter what you may believe, I'll believe the police before I believe anything from a UN staffer living in Italy.
Sorry Mikey, but you lose again.

Even this one: http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/11/false-dgu-uncovered-mn-homeowner.html

I'll bet you even liked old Jerome: http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/10/jerome-ersland-is-appealing-his-murder.html

Demand proof where there is none and pretend that wins the argument. You guys love this one as a way of avoiding thinking for yourselves.

Can get any worse about being a non-thinker than willful ignorance mikey.

Last edited Fri Nov 30, 2012, 04:42 AM - Edit history (1)

otherwise, it is just a rant.

Says it all.

but he regurgitates David Hemenway offering only "I don't buy it". It seems they failed in their stated mission.

it sounds like a marketing gimmick like "fair and balanced"


your first link, it is apparent that the cops, based on their investigation, viewed it as a legitimate defensive action. Brandishing is a felony in most places. The details that the cops and the DA would know and consider, like disparity of force, but would not be mentioned in the article or by your fellow blogger.
The second one has the same problem, basing your entire argument on a newspaper article. It seems the cops and the "DA disagree with you on this one as well. It seems they also know details not mentioned in the article.

Neither of your examples were criminal acts, since they were apparently viewed as reasonable defensive actions by the authorities.

To answer your question, I would put it closer to 250K give or take.

Last edited Mon Nov 26, 2012, 04:14 PM - Edit history (2)

&feature=fvwrel

&feature=related

&feature=relate


And thats just a couple minutes of google.

This falls right in line with the zombie poster that thinks the Second Amendment was rendered
null and void by the Civil War.

You've got to try a little harder, Jason- the idea of 'papal infallibility' only applies to believers...

Last edited Mon Nov 26, 2012, 05:12 PM - Edit history (1)

When they generate a dozen threads on the GD forum here in DU, that's when you know they've truly arrived.

there are a few links in there to non-blog sources. But the main thing is you have to use your head and think a little. You guys don't often do that.

An honest person realizes that there is no really valid way to count them. Then again, you are clearly not an honest man...nor the source you cite

I think you're full of shit, as usual. Random anecdotes and gut feelings. We "can be sure"? How? Why? Because you say/think so? Crap, crap, and more crap.

DGUs!

About critical inquiry or ANY notion of rigorous thought, do you? The "Propaganda Professor?" Really?

...to the discussion.

Thanks for the plug, mike302000. I'm sorry to see that so far it has not prompted any replies except knee-jerk reactions. It's a topic that deserves more thoughtful discussion.

Last edited Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:42 PM - Edit history (1)

There's no fodder there for any kind of thoughtful discussion. It's just creative speculation, an opinion based on weak evidence gathered with little real effort. Perhaps I can help here.

There have been attempts to do serious academic research on the subject. Those have been universally plagued by problems with definitions and a vacuum of verifiable information. Researchers are inevitably subjected to accusations of bias one way or another, usually with good reason. (BTW - In skimming your blog I can see that you have an obvious bias. Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

It's likely that most incidents of defensive uses of firearms never get reported to law enforcement, and those that do rarely show up in any official records because no serious crime was carried out and the defensive action itself didn't constitute a crime.

For example, if someone calls the police and says "A man broke into my house while I was eating dinner. He was drunk and threatened me. I pulled a shotgun on him and told him to get out. He left."

Was that an actual defensive gun use? Was the person who used the weapon ever in any actual danger (and does that matter)? Would the report of a crime (e.g. trespassing) have any mention of the fact that the victim used a weapon to chase off the intruder? Are law enforcement agencies consistent in how they record that kind of call (no, they're not.) How would a researcher even know that such an event had occurred, much less how to classify it?

The devil is in the details, PropagandaProfessor. BTW - Did you choose that handle because you are an authority on the subject of propaganda, or for some other reason?

BTW - I just read the mission statement on your Web site. I LOL'd at "We offer solid fact without becoming pedantic, and personality without relying on opinion."

the only knee jerking I see is by mikeb. Calling the two cases in his links "criminal acts disguised as DGUs" is based on a newspaper article and his own ideology is absurd. Media accounts, unlike police reports, are often partly accurate and void of many important details. Those missing details are what the legal decisions were based on. Legally and probably morally, both were legitimate DGUs.

Yes the subject deserves more thoughtful discussion, but it seems to come down to the battle of a couple of old academic studies. Or Kleck v Hemenway. I read Kleck's book that resulted from his study and Hemenway's counter study. Between the two, Hemenway's had more propaganda than Kleck's. Like most people, my knowledge of statistics is limited. That is why the "Harvard study" seems to have more weight at face value until you dig a little deeper. As a lay person without a statistics background, I have to consider:
Kleck does not seem to have any connection with either side. While the NRA likes his study for obvious reasons, they would not like him.
His study was published in a peer reviewed criminology journal with no connection to Florida State University
The resulting book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, earned him the 1993 Michael J. Hindelang Award, from the American Society of Criminology.

Here are the basic problems I have with Hemenway's study, again as a critical thinking layman.
he speculated on what would cause false positives, but offered no evidence that there were any.
accused Gertz's employees of dishonesty with no evidence.
Hemenway's department, and his studies, are funded by the same foundation that keeps VPC, MAIG and other gun control groups afloat. That kind of paralells this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#U.S._education

A DGU is the use of a firearm, whether fired or not, to stop the further commission of a violent crime against a person. If you just show the gun, and the mugger runs away, that is a valid DGU. Sometimes a DGU does involve firing shots, sometimes killing the felon.

Now your Ponderosa bet is that 1,000 is the extreme upper limit for DGU's

Let's count corpses. The FBI 2011 data table shows 201 justifiable homicides by private citizens using a gun against a criminal during a felony. It is well known that the FBI number is low by about half. The reason for this is that police will often list a DGU as a murder during the initial report, only to go back later and change it to justifiable homicide when the investigation is complete. The FBI picks up on the initial report, but often the modified report isn't filed with the FBI.

This website shows 236 as the number for 2010. http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/?mg=inert-wsj&standalone=1#view=all&circ=80&y=2010

Some states, such as NY, don't report justified homicides at all, since they aren't a crime.

But we will go with the FBI number, rounded to 200 as the number of dead perps killed by DGU, mostly by handguns. It is well known that most people survive being shot. About 80% (rounded from 78%) survive. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1997/02/24/knives-00006/

So to get 200 dead thugs you need to shoot about 1,000. Now add in the thugs that run away at the sight of a gun. There are no firm numbers on that but the percentage is easily in the high 90s. Even if it is only half, that still doubles the 1,000 to 2,000.

I will take the deed to the Ponderosa now.

Trying for a more realistic figure will take some assumptions.
About half of all homes (About 65 million housing units) have a gun, and about 10 millions folks have CCWs. According to the FBI there were about 1.2 million violent crimes in the US in 2011, and 9 million property crimes. That is 10 million felony crimes per year. If only 1% of those 10 million crimes are interrupted by a gun then you have 100,000 DGUs annually. I would submit that more than 1% of crimes are interrupted by armed citizens annually.

Now you owe me many Poderosas.

Let us suppose that a DGU is a rare ev

When the final count is done, you have to figure on a certain percentage having really been unnecessary or premature. Sure a bad guy runs away at the sight of a gun, but when the gun is introduced that early, we cannot know what would have happened. The gun owner always says there was a serious threat, but that's just not true. Sometimes there was no threat at all, and other times the threat could have been averted in other ways.

So let's take your numbers and cut them in half just to be fair. You can give the deed to the Ponderosa back now.

Add in some genuine scared off criminals (Surely you must admit that there are some.) and we have well over 1,000 genuine DGUs. I will keep the deed.

For a DGU to be genuine you don't need a crystal ball that shows a certain future. All you need is a reasonable projection of current situation into the future. If I am at an ATM and a guy pulls a knife and says, "Gimme your money." I don't have to guess whether or not he is bluffing. I can then pull my gun and shoot, or if he turns and runs away I can restrain from shooting. Either way it would be a valid DGU.

One does not pull the gun out based on mere feeling. There needs to be something overt and serious to base that feeling on.

&quot c) 500 to 1000"

That's your guess? That's the number of yearly lawful DGU's that actually produce a fatality. Remember to combine Excusable homicide with a firearm, Justifiable homicide with a firearm, and civilian legal defensive homicides, as different states report the numbers separately, due to variations in state statutes.

Most DGU's don't involve firing the weapon.
Of those cases that do involve discharging the weapon, most do not result in a fatality.

You missed something. I'm not limiting the scope. His 'estimate' falls wildly short of the entirety of 'Defensive Gun Uses' because ONLY the ones that produce a fatality are documented to occur at LEAST that often, which leaves lawful DGU's that produce wounds, clean misses, and merely a show of force.

Guilty as charged. I have an uncontrollable response: Every time I read a bunch of bullshit, my knee jerks.

Make a ludicrous claim, fail to support it, and then whine when you're challenged: sheer rhetorical brilliance. Doesn't matter anyway -- it's all about the plugs and the traffic, right? That and the little self-congratulatory buzz you get from the erroneous belief that you're fighting the good fight.

Knee-jerk reactions is right, much of which comes in the form of personal attack. These guys can't stand the truth.

You haven't posted anything but an example of someone else's poor mathematical foundation.

You apparently define "truth" as any farfetched assertion you choose to pull out of your ass. You have offered no evidence of the "truth" of your statements. It's strictly a matter of faith, the Prohibitionist's Creed. Who but a credulous fool would accept it?

Just a anecdotal story. Was working as a bartender on the side as a young man in the Navy, Went to make the night deposit on the way home. Was approached by two men when I was walking up to the bank. One asked what I was doing, the other pulled a knife out of his coat, and asked how much did I have. I opened my coat, and showed them the 1911 I had tucked into my waistband. They both turned and walked away. No shooting, nothing reported. But by the OP's standard, not a legitimate DGU, because I too was a criminal, as I had no CWP, in state (Cali) that wouldn't give me one.

"the plural of anecdote is not data," when the anecdotal stories become as commonplace as they are in the news, you gotta wonder. Maybe you guys got it wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_of_the_Shark

http://news.ufl.edu/2002/02/18/sharks02/

What do you think of your progress?

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/11/new-york-gun-control-law-upheld-another.html

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/11/san-francisco-gun-control-laws-upheld.html

And San Francisco has lost against the NRA and SAF before, as California has a state preemption law
banning municipal gun laws.

http://www.dailyillini.com/news/national/article_14a4dfbe-43bd-11e2-bc42-0019bb30f31a.html

a vengeance is because it's the very last straw that they can flail toward.

They have lost on ALL fronts - judicial, legislative, and in the court of public opinion. All they have left is their "moral" certitude - and the prevalence of DGU's destroys that as well.

Even if you choose to believe that the scientific Kleck/Gertz DGU count is inflated - as well as surveys that confirm their findings within the scientific margin of error - these surveys demolish the notion that defensive gun use is rare. And they indicate that DGU's are at least as common as offensive gun use, if not more common, even if the DGU numbers are substantially reduced.

Your 'latter' number is in line with the number of HOMICIDES committed with a firearm, ruled justifiable or excusable homicide (presumably DGU's in which someone was shot and killed).


Most DGU's don't involve discharging the weapon at all. Those that do, most do not result in a fatality.

"Most DGU's don't involve discharging the weapon at all. Those that do, most do not result in a fatality."

Have had 3 DGU's in my life, 2 times the gun never even got into my hand, just had to show the individuals involved that it was there. The third time it was in my hand, but not raised. 98% positive, that in 2 of those three events, bodily harm would have came to either myself, or a friend if I had not been armed.

Don't forget the last guy to claim to "know" what people were thinking from a distance got banned...

I am sure two men, a knife, 3am, asking me how much I had, they just wanted to make sure I was safe, and nobody else was going to bother me. The other case, three men with the opening statement of "We're going fuck you up" I am sure if it wasn't for the paranoia I would have realized that meant we are going to give you a massage, and help you get home today.

You state: "To my mind there has never been a better, more thorough and convincing explanation of this subject."

Followed immediately by: "This is not a scientific study, just a suggestion or two about how one might be conducted. My figures may not be precise but they are, if not in the ballpark, at least on the right planet."

Am I the only one that sees the issue with those two statements?

His self-contradiction is quite legendary.

You see, the exaggerated claims of how many DGUs there are each year are based on the calculation that 95% of them are the brandishing kind which require no report of any kind. In this, all of a sudden, you guys don't require proof or statistics or evidence. You're happy with the guess or the projection or the assumption.

That makes you a bunch of hypocrites. When a gun control person says something you always want evidence. And that's why I liked the Professor's post.

You make the statement that you are thoroughly convinced by mere suggestions and not scientific study.

Then you follow that up with a straw man argument.

"the exaggerated claims of how many DGUs there are each year are based on the calculation that 95% of them are the brandishing kind which require no report of any kind." - This is a misrepresentation of the point of view that disagrees with you. I'd ask for evidence of who is making the argument, however I doubt you would be able to find anywhere this argument is being made.

"In this, all of a sudden, you guys don't require proof or statistics or evidence. You're happy with the guess or the projection or the assumption" - Again, this claim cannot be substantiated by you, because the argument that you are claiming that we are making never happened. So your point is completely moot.

So this does not make us a bunch of hypocrites, because what you claim is our argument, is indeed not an argument anyone is making at all.

To my mind...

just a suggestion ...

may not be precise ...

not in the ballpark...

I’d bet...

I'm afraid...



Well, I'm convinced.

Some people just don't want to learn...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117276516#post6

Accuracy with numbers ain't his strongest suit.

Reviewing the comments here again, I'm disappointed to see that there still isn't much in the way of productive discussion. As with virtually all of my detractors, the commentators here are reacting as if I were the one proposing beliefs instead of debunking them. I'm even more disappointed to see that there is a great deal of ad hominem bickering, but I suppose that's to be expected these days, alas.

I'm both amused and perplexed to see so much hyperventilation over my simple observation that my essay is "not a scientific study" -- which some have taken to be an admission that its approach is not scientific at all. But a scientific study is a series of controlled experiments backed by funding. And it doesn't take one scientific study to deconstruct another. The big problem with the DGU "studies" (and I take exception to the use of the word, since they're really polls rather than studies) is that they project numbers based on interviews of what gun owners CLAIM happened. The unreliability of this approach should be apparent from the astronomically wide range of variation in results -- from 65,000 to 2.5 million (some have even estimated 3.6 million) is, to say the least, quite a stretch. I wrote my post to suggest that it would be more accurate to project from a foundation of verified statistics instead. If anyone has an actual reason why this is not a good idea, I'd love to hear it. Just drop by my place and pull up a chair (or a soapbox).

Indeed, I'd urge you to look at the recent comments on the post in question to see what I mean by productive discussion. A commentator calling himself Frail Liberty has challenged my comments, but he has done so in an entirely adult manner: civil, intelligent, and informed. It's the kind of thing I wish I could see more of.

then you open yourself up to criticism.

There is DGU where people are killed
There is DGU where people are wounded (80% of gun shot victims survive)
There is DGU where shots are fired but no one is shot.
There is DGU where no shots are fired.


Try to tell me with a straight face that you used "verified statistics" to examine all four kinds of DGU.

Last edited Wed Dec 12, 2012, 08:35 AM - Edit history (1)

and come to a meaningful estimate of DGUs?

as there is little statistical data for reference.

I live in Florida where gun ownership is common and I know of several incidents where a friend or co-worker described using a firearm for self defense. Admittedly such stories are merely anecdotal.

In most of the cases I have heard of the incident would qualify under your standards for a DGU.

Two of the incidents that I have heard of would not fit your definition. One involved a peeping Tom and the other a prowler. Another involved a police officer who shot an attacking dog and I don't believe you are counting actions by the police.

Two incidents involved members of my family but one occurred in the 1920s and the other in the 90s.

Two involved a mugging by an individual armed with a knife and one with a road raged person with a tire iron. All of these ended when the attacker realized his victim was armed with a handgun. No shots were fired.

Considering that I know a lot of people who own firearms and many who legally carry, these anecdotal tales do not prove that firearms are used frequently for self defense especially when you consider the time frame in which they occurred.

However we both admit that legitimate DGUs do occur. I feel that the figure of 2.5 million times a year is exaggerated but your estimate of 1000 is far too low. Since we are playing a guessing game I estimate the number in the range of 30 to 65 thousand times a year. Most probably involve the use of a firearm for hone defense against a criminal foolish enough to enter an occupied home.

I feel it would be extremely difficult to obtain accurate statistics on DGUs. Any survey would probably be biased by the viewpoint of those who conducted it. Of course the results would be questioned by the other side of the debate and be ignored or discredited. Little would be accomplished.

It might be more valuable to conduct a survey to determine if civilian firearm ownership deters crime. This would involve interviews with individuals with a criminal record. I believe that a few such surveys have been made have shown some deterrent effect. For example a criminal may be less likely to enter an occupied home in Florida than he would in a city such as Chicago where firearm ownership is tightly regulated.

posted links to some articles on the topic. One of them in particular discusses this topic of estimating DGUs...