Common DGU myths:
There are 1M to 2.5M DGUs annually in the US.
This has its genesis with criminologist Gary Kleck who has a number of studies as to the frequency of DGUs, ranging from 1M to 2.5M DGUs occurring annually in the US. If we assume Kleck’s methodology is flawless (it's not), there are problems with Kleck’s findings that are readily apparent. For example, Kleck’s own research states that in 8% of all DGUs, the gun is fired–wounding an alleged criminal. Kleck also notes that 15% of gun shot wounds are fatal. If we do the math: 2.5M DGUs x .08 woundings x .15 fatal wounds, we should have 30,000 justifiable gun homicides each year in the US. FBI UCARS routinely place the annual number of justifiable homicides at less than 300 per year--from all causes.
In most DGUs, the gun is merely brandished.
In reality, many DGUs aren't. In "Gun Use in the United States: Results from Two National Surveys." Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267, criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective. The same study also found guns were used more frequently to harrass or intimidate rather than to ward off or prevent criminal behavior.
.
A DGU doesn't have to be legal to be counted, as there are many places that have worked hard to criminalize self-defense. Chicago and DC being two well known examples.
ReplyDeleteAz Red needs to improve the ol' reading skillz.
ReplyDelete"even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective."
Also, the very definition used by Kleck of a DGU is that the gun was used against or as a defense against a specific crime.
I think you just need to read period, because that had nothing to do with what I said.
ReplyDeleteI was specifically addressing Chicago and DC, where even if you have a permit to own a gun, there is no way to legally use it for self-defense as guns had to be kept locked up, unloaded, disassembled, etc.
AR: I see. You're claiming that only gun that can possibly be used in a DGU is a handgun.
ReplyDeleteGot it.
Reversing the logic, that's still a quite a few DGUs. How many more people would die or be injured a year if those 25,000 hypothetical crimes occured, should self-defence with a firearm be restricted? Also, what would you call for afterwards? MORE restrictions?
ReplyDeleteJade, Chicago’s pre-McDonald law did not allow for ANY guns to be available for self-defense. As AztecRed said, long guns had to be locked/unloaded/dissembled. Got it now?
ReplyDeleteJade, Chicago’s pre-McDonald law did not allow for ANY guns to be available for self-defense.
ReplyDeleteAgain, this is not wholly accurate.
Jadegold: “Again, this is not wholly accurate.”
ReplyDeletePlease explain. Chicago’s requirements were specifically in violation of the right to self-defense in the home from the Heller ruling.
TS: The biggest misnomer put forth by gunloons was that all guns were banned in Chicago. The fact is one could own a handgun (purchased prior to 1982) and one could always own a variety of long guns.
ReplyDeleteIt is also disingenuous to suggest that all Chicago gunowners--or even a small minority--kept their weapons in a disassembled state.
Jade: “The biggest misnomer put forth by gunloons was that all guns were banned in Chicago.”
ReplyDeleteI’ve never saw someone say that.
Jade: “The fact is one could own a handgun (purchased prior to 1982) and one could always own a variety of long guns.”
And that is unacceptable.
Jade: “It is also disingenuous to suggest that all Chicago gunowners--or even a small minority--kept their weapons in a disassembled state.”
That’s pretty much the point, that Chicagoans had to break the law to defend themselves, thus being an illegal DGU (but morally justified).
Sorry to come to this one so late. I'm with you 100% on the Kleck nonsense, which amazingly is taken to heart by so many gun lovers.
ReplyDeleteWould the same arguments work against Prof. Lott?