merphie said:Here we go again.
Read the article and you will find your answer.
Yes, "here we go again": And you know what? I don't get it.
Why won't you answer a simple question like that?
Is it because the answer is too embarrassing?
Or perhaps the answer is not there?
CFLarsen said:
The answer is in the link. You would know that if you read it.
You are just being argumentative. I know where the information came from in the referenced article because I have read it. I am not going to pander to your ignorance and expect a meaningful debate with you when you won't read the referenced material before opening your mouth.
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
I know where Claus is heading and I suspect you do as well which may be why you refuse to answer. Humor us, answer the question.merphie said:
Here are a couple of links which help shed some light on the style, substance, technique and the general statistical woo-woo nature of Mr. Lott.
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lindgren.html
http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/files/maltz.html
CFLarsen said:
He's actually referring to this source.
It has a better sample size (5 or 6 thousand) but is still just a telephone survey.
A quick google turned up this yah boo sucks response.
Although it is biased, I did like this
If it wasn't so big it would make a good sig line.
merphie said:
Yes but the actual figures of >2mill DGU (Defensive Gun Use) are taken from the Kleck & Gertz study, no other cite is present to support it.
Your link shows NCVS reports DGU at 65k to 82k, whilst they have 11 other surveys suggesting a figure of over 700k. They acknowledge flaws in those other surveys as the ones with higher figures were generally not asking direct questions about DGU.
There is insufficient explanation given of what they are using to compare these surveys and chose one over the other. For instance, what constitues DGU? Waiving a loaded pistol at someone? Having one in the house? Shouting 'I've got a gun and I'm not afraid to use it' through the letter box. We could probably settle on a reasonable definition for the purposes of argument, however the real point is the lack of a definition common across those surveys. The article acknowledges that.
Benguin said:
If you read the Kleck and Gertz study it describes how they got their data.
I would suggest a DGU is anything that prevents the crime. Whether it be the threat or use of a gun.
edit to add
Taken From Kleck's own words
Camillus
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2003
- Messages
- 483
You are wrong about juries in the UK having to uphold the law. It is not the role of the jury to make decisions based on law, that is the role of the judge. The jury are there to judge the facts as they are presented and to make a decision about the guilt or innocence of the accused. They may make any verdict they choose, although the prosecution may appeal if they believe the jury produced a ‘perverse decision’.
On the point of self defence law in the UK it is worth noting that you are entitled to use as much force as you believed was reasonable at the time to protect yourself. That can (and does) include acting before you are actually attacked and responding with deadly force. The decision about what constitutes ‘reasonable force’ is up to the jury, but if you plead self defence it is up to the prosecution to show that what you did was unreasonable. In other words the prosecution have to show that a ‘normal person’ in the same situation as you found yourself, with the same information that you had at the time would not have done what you did because it would have been ‘unreasonable’.
This is often the crux of home defence cases. In most cases homeowners don’t get prosecuted or are found not guilty. For instance I’m aware of a case where a man found a burglar in his kitchen. The intruder then attacked him and there was a struggle during which the homeowner picked up a kitchen knife and inflicted a fatal wound on his assailant. The homeowner in this case acted properly in self-defence; even though his attacker died he was deemed to have used reasonable force because it is not unreasonable to believe that someone who attacks you in your own home intends to do you grievous, or even fatal injury. On the other hand if the burglar had tried to escape and the homeowner had dragged him back into the house, picked up a knife and stabbed him to death the homeowner would likely be found guilty of murder. Not because he stopped the burglar from escaping, but because his use of deadly force in a situation where the intruder had chosen to flee rather than fight would be seen as unreasonable.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 makes it difficult for someone convicted of an imprisonable offence to sue a homeowner for injuries they received during the commission of their crime, even if they are injured when the homeowner defends himself. In such a case the criminal can only sue if the court gives permission and that permission will only be given if the homeowner was deemed to have acted unreasonably.
There seems to be a view that because the UK has strict gun laws it also has strict laws against defending yourself or others. That is simply not the case; people in the UK are allowed to do whatever is reasonable to protect themselves or others from harm. However if you use an illegally held weapon to do so you are likely to be charged with possession of that weapon even if no charges arise from the act of self-defence itself.
There are often calls for the law on self-defence in the UK to be clarified but I’m not sure what could be done. It is impossible to define reasonable force for every situation that might occur and definitions tend to cause more problems than they solve, possibly working against those who wish to defend themselves rather than for them.
Camillus said:
This sounds very close to how things work in the USA.
That is probably more the point. From my understanding most in the UK people are not allowed to keep firearms in their house. If they do they have to be disabled in some way that would make them useless.
Camillus
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2003
- Messages
- 483
merphie said:
Not true. Firearms legislation in the UK is complex but essentially there are four categories of 'gun' that are covered by the law:
- Airguns: these are not regulated if the pressure used in the system is less than 12 ft/lbs for rifles and 6 ft/lbs for pistols but you have to be over 17 to buy one. There are no regulations covering where they are stored in your home.
- Shotguns: require a specific license and cannot have a capacity of more than three rounds. When not in use they, and their ammunition, must be kept in a secure place.
- Firearms: anything not covered above including shotguns with a capacity of more than three rounds and 'over powered' airguns. Require a special license and must be stored (unloaded) in a locked safe with ammunition kept in a seperate, secure, location. Both may be in your own home. Handguns are a special case as they are essentially illegal to own in the UK. Muzzle loaders are the only handguns that can be legally owned but possession of black powder requires an explosives license. Some cartridge pistols of historic interest can be kept and fired at designated sites but you can't keep one in your home.
- Imitation Firearms: anyone over 18 can buy one but possession in public carries a five year prison sentence. Most guns used in crimes in the UK are carried out with imitations or imitations that have been converted to fire live ammunition.
Hope that helps.