Missed that post.

On edit, that other post was locked.

killed by gun violence in 2015: 12,942
http://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/gun-violence-stats-2015/

saved by someone with a gun in July 2014 to July 2015: 283
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/05/gun-control-owners-criminals/

Most DGUs involve no shots fired.

If you're really interested in keeping score, that is.

If they actually cared about anything vaguely approaching reality or truth, they might actually want to know how many times a gun was involved in a defensive situation where no shots were fired and nobody died.

Then they would go to a number of unbiased sites like the CDC and others and when they find out that the number of DGU is like 20+ to 1 versus crimes, their whole narrative would go as flat as the "The CDC can't do any gun research" lie.

Gun control fans are big on supporting myths. But they have lots of "studies" and "research" to support their myths. Mostly funded by a racist Billionaire, but lots of "unbiased" studies proving the myths.

Another great myth they and their media bootlickers love. There were estimated to be 300 million guns in the US 20 years ago and that's pretty much the number they still use, even with record NICS checks every month. Unless they assume that firearm are like bananas and get old and thrown out at the rate of a million or so a month?

They do loves them some myths.

Please provide a source, a study, any credible information about how many DGU there are that are not estimates based on guesses from gun promoters like Lott.

Despite his admission that he cannot document his 1997 survey, Lott continues to discuss the alleged findings from that project as if they are acceptable as statistical evidence. (See “What Surveys Can Help Us Understand About Guns?” cited earlier.) It appears that he has learned nothing from his critics about the ethical requirements of the scientific enterprise. So it is time for Lott’s supporters to advise him that his best course of action now is to retract his claims concerning the 1997 survey. Say-so and “recall” that gets more elaborate as time goes by are simply not acceptable. And it is long past time for him to retract his manifestly false allegations about what other investigators have found. His failure to do so is much more reprehensible than the Mary Rosh foolishness.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/04/10/duncan3/


In 1992, Gary Kleck and Marc Getz, criminologists at Florida State University, conducted a random digit-dial survey to establish the annual number of defensive gun uses in the United States. They surveyed 5,000 individuals, asking them if they had used a firearm in self-defense in the past year and, if so, for what reason and to what effect. Sixty-six incidences of defensive gun use were reported from the sample. The researchers then extrapolated their findings to the entire U.S. population, resulting in an estimate of between 1 million and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year.

The claim has since become gospel for gun advocates and is frequently touted by the National Rifle Association, pro-gun scholars such as John Lott and conservative politicians. The argument typically goes something like this: Guns are used defensively “over 2 million times every year—five times more frequently than the 430,000 times guns were used to commit crimes.” Or, as Gun Owners of America states, “firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.” Former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum has frequently opined on the benefits of defensive gun use, explaining: “In fact, there are millions of lives that are saved in America every year, or millions of instances like that where gun owners have prevented crimes and stopped things from happening because of having guns at the scene.”

It may sound reassuring, but is utterly false. In fact, gun owners are far more likely to end up like Theodore Wafer or Eusebio Christian, accidentally shooting an innocent person or seeing their weapons harm a family member, than be heroes warding off criminals.

http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-defensive-gun-use-myth/

is that Kleck's work verified fifteen previous studies and has been verified since by other researchers, all of whom published their work in peer review criminology journals. Kleck isn't "pro gun" he is simply a researcher who found what he found and let the facts speak for themselves.

Researchers pressed Lott, then a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, to release the data behind his claim that 98 percent of defensive gun uses in the United States involved a would-be victim merely brandishing a gun. Lott claimed that it was based on a data from a survey he had conducted—but that the data had been lost in a computer crash. Lott redid the survey in 2002; of more than 1,000 people surveyed, seven said they'd used a gun to defend themselves. Of those seven, six merely flashed a firearm in self-defense. Based on these responses, plus the lost data, Lott still asserts that more than 90 percent of defensive gun uses involve brandishing a gun.

As criticism of Lott mounted, an online commenter, who identified herself as a former student of Lott's at Penn named Mary Rosh, lavishly praised her former professor and attacked his critics. "He was the best professor that I ever had," she wrote. After it came out in 2003 that Rosh and Lott shared an internet address, Lott admitted to the sock puppetry, saying that he had been receiving obnoxious phone calls when using his real name, and some of Rosh's comments were possibly written by his family members on a shared email account. "In most circles, this goes down as fraud," wrote Science editor-in-chief Donald Kennedy in the magazine. And yet, he observed in a blistering op-ed, "Legislators in a number of states are still considering liberalizing concealed-weapon laws, and Lott's book plays a continuing role in the debate. That moves this story from high comedy to a troubling challenge in social policy that isn't funny at all."

Lott is no longer affiliated with any university. Now when he appears, he's introduced as the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, a nonprofit he founded in 2013 to study the relationship between gun laws and crime. The organization, headquartered at his home in Swarthmore, Pennsylvania, produces and publishes "academic quality" reports that have yet to be published in peer-reviewed journals, but are, according to Lott, informally reviewed by the organization's academic board. "If they have comments, while there is no formal review by them, they let us know," he explains in an email. The center's reports have been cited by the New York Times, the Boston Globe and other major publications.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/john-lott-guns-crime-data

What is striking about this collection of individuals is not only the extremists like Nugent and Clarke, but also that there is not a criminologist to be found among CPRC’s academic advisers. Many of these advisers have produced no research on gun violence whatsoever. Others have published in this area only as co-authors with Lott.

Why has Lott found it so hard to recruit peers to his latest pro-gun initiative? A recent survey from a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, David Hemenway, provides the answer. Hemenway surveyed 300 academics who had conducted research on gun violence and found that an overwhelming majority believed that strong gun laws reduce such violence. For example, 64% stated they believe a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place, compared to only 5% who said a safer place.

Of course, Lott is also followed by his reputation, which continues to take hits. And now that his latest “pseudonym” has been exposed, it will be interesting to see how many of his current friends want to continue to put their name behind his latest enterprise.

http://csgv.org/blog/2015/whos-backing-last-pro-gun-academic/

P.S. - I have no blog. I receive no funds from Mayor Bloomberg or any other organization.

Lott is a shill, just like Hemenway is a shill. Hemenway doesn't even release his crap for peer review. He is there because he is an alumi who gets his department funded by the Joyce Foundation.

Kleck is head of the Criminology department at Florida State.

You may not have a blog and receive funds from Bloomberg or Joyce Foundation, but CSGV does. So did Mother Jones when the article was written.

BTW, both make personal attacks against Lott without even trying to dispute his work beyond "this other shill disagrees" without actually explaining in detail the flaws. That works great for the critical thinking impaired Trump fan boy, but not me.

It's all guesstimates.

and I doubt you would understand it. It is even easier to dismiss Hemenway because he just made shit up.

They need to be called out abot the practice whenever they indulge in it.

most don't make it to the police or media for various reasons. They might have called the police, but the cops probably didn't think it was worth the paperwork.
BTW,

After all "Studies" are the mother's milk of gun control.

Not action in the real world, financial support, or any kind of real world commitment, but as many studies as they can stack up and get somebody else to pay for.

That's why so many of them hold their nose and love that racist pig Bloomberg so much.

He keeps them from having to reach for the checkbook, getting off the couch, or doing anything in the real world beyond whining online.

How dare anyone introduce other sources, questions on peer review or challenge the "mighty" Hemenway.

Just another "survey says" gun control dump.

When sales and NICS checks remain at record highs and crime continues to drop, it has to be really upsetting for the true believers that; more guns = more crime.

But I haven't seen one refutation of the analysis of Kleck's theory above, just a lot of thrashing about.

Not having any criminologists on board was held to be A Bad Thing in post #11, remember?
You should, as you posted the following:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172188917#post11

and that sure is you.

Have a swell day and be sure and let us know when the "Tide has turned" again in favor of gun control.

Was the hatchet CCed or OCed?
Shouldn't one be trained and qualified in the use of such deadly weapons?

The hatchet was carried in the hand, ready to use. Thus neither open carry nor concealed carry.