Sensible Gun Safety

[Farfromgeneva]

Nah it’s never legally obtained or owned guns…

Situational awareness: The GBI says the agency confirmed that the activist who was shot and killed by authorities during an effort to clear the so-called "Cop City" legally purchased the gun used to shoot and wound a state trooper.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Shooting in Monterey Park (eleven dead), January 23.

Shooting in Half Moon Bay (seven dead), January 23.

Shooting at Iowa charter school (two dead), January 23.

Some data:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

[PizzaSnake]

Anyone here ever been to a "mock" firearm combat facility ("airsoft" - extremely hard and fast ceramic projectiles or paintball - hard, paint-filled projectiles that rupture on impact)? Particularly interesting are the underground facilities that approximate urban, close quarters engagement. It's almost as though the military reserve system has figured out a way to get "future" soldiers to train themselves.

Take a gander at the demographics of the participants if you do. Entire cohorts have been habituated to the idea and practice of ritualized gun violence. So, while they are breaking down any inhibitions about shooting other humans, they are improving their reaction time and proficiency.

Don't expect the number and frequency of "mass shootings" to go down.

If I were another nation contemplating any sort of military activities against the US I would be shiteing myself. A nation with more firearms than citizens and a widespread and growing national "sport" of small arms warfare simulation. The natural evolution of warfare will be autonomous, self-directed kill platforms. Sending your citizens into an environment like that being brewed in the US would be a suicide mission. So, I guess maybe Russia and North Korea might attempt it, but most other nations would not. Any sort of "pacification" and control of conquered territory will be done via annihilation (think Ghengis Khan and the wholesale slaughter of populations) via mechanized platforms. I give it maybe 5 years, 10 at the outside for this to be the reality.

[get it to x]

Anyone here ever been to a "mock" firearm combat facility ("airsoft" - extremely hard and fast ceramic projectiles or paintball - hard, paint-filled projectiles that rupture on impact)? Particularly interesting are the underground facilities that approximate urban, close quarters engagement. It's almost as though the military reserve system has figured out a way to get "future" soldiers to train themselves.

Take a gander at the demographics of the participants if you do. Entire cohorts have been habituated to the idea and practice of ritualized gun violence. So, while they are breaking down any inhibitions about shooting other humans, they are improving their reaction time and proficiency.

Don't expect the number and frequency of "mass shootings" to go down.

If I were another nation contemplating any sort of military activities against the US I would be shiteing myself. A nation with more firearms than citizens and a widespread and growing national "sport" of small arms warfare simulation. The natural evolution of warfare will be autonomous, self-directed kill platforms. Sending your citizens into an environment like that being brewed in the US would be a suicide mission. So, I guess maybe Russia and North Korea might attempt it, but most other nations would not. Any sort of "pacification" and control of conquered territory will be done via annihilation (think Ghengis Khan and the wholesale slaughter of populations) via mechanized platforms. I give it maybe 5 years, 10 at the outside for this to be the reality.

Not to minimize mass shootings or homicides, even criminal on criminal violence, but do any of the "sensible gun laws" crowd consider how many crimes are deterred or halted by the defensive use of firearms by legal gun owners? Nearly every aspect of our lives involves a cost benefit analysis, whether done on a personal level or a societal level. The estimates I have seen are generally multiples of the gun deaths, which to me is a benefit.

[Kismet]

Anyone here ever been to a "mock" firearm combat facility ("airsoft" - extremely hard and fast ceramic projectiles or paintball - hard, paint-filled projectiles that rupture on impact)? Particularly interesting are the underground facilities that approximate urban, close quarters engagement. It's almost as though the military reserve system has figured out a way to get "future" soldiers to train themselves.

Take a gander at the demographics of the participants if you do. Entire cohorts have been habituated to the idea and practice of ritualized gun violence. So, while they are breaking down any inhibitions about shooting other humans, they are improving their reaction time and proficiency.

Don't expect the number and frequency of "mass shootings" to go down.

If I were another nation contemplating any sort of military activities against the US I would be shiteing myself. A nation with more firearms than citizens and a widespread and growing national "sport" of small arms warfare simulation. The natural evolution of warfare will be autonomous, self-directed kill platforms. Sending your citizens into an environment like that being brewed in the US would be a suicide mission. So, I guess maybe Russia and North Korea might attempt it, but most other nations would not. Any sort of "pacification" and control of conquered territory will be done via annihilation (think Ghengis Khan and the wholesale slaughter of populations) via mechanized platforms. I give it maybe 5 years, 10 at the outside for this to be the reality.

Not to minimize mass shootings or homicides, even criminal on criminal violence, but do any of the "sensible gun laws" crowd consider how many crimes are deterred or halted by the defensive use of firearms by legal gun owners? Nearly every aspect of our lives involves a cost benefit analysis, whether done on a personal level or a societal level. The estimates I have seen are generally multiples of the gun deaths, which to me is a benefit.

Do provide a link to the credible data you reference. Thx

[Seacoaster(1)]

I am having trouble with the notion of a cost/benefit analysis here, when we are talking about folks walking into dance halls and movie theatres and grocery stores and churches and music festivals and colleges and schools, and killing unarmed children and shoppers and moviegoers and congregants.

[get it to x]

I am having trouble with the notion of a cost/benefit analysis here, when we are talking about folks walking into dance halls and movie theatres and grocery stores and churches and music festivals and colleges and schools, and killing unarmed children and shoppers and moviegoers and congregants.

And people dying from vehicle accidents, swimming pool drownings, fires, stabbings, accidental poisoning....all are tragic. Maybe you should talk to someone who used a gun to defend themselves or their family.

[get it to x]

Anyone here ever been to a "mock" firearm combat facility ("airsoft" - extremely hard and fast ceramic projectiles or paintball - hard, paint-filled projectiles that rupture on impact)? Particularly interesting are the underground facilities that approximate urban, close quarters engagement. It's almost as though the military reserve system has figured out a way to get "future" soldiers to train themselves.

Take a gander at the demographics of the participants if you do. Entire cohorts have been habituated to the idea and practice of ritualized gun violence. So, while they are breaking down any inhibitions about shooting other humans, they are improving their reaction time and proficiency.

Don't expect the number and frequency of "mass shootings" to go down.

If I were another nation contemplating any sort of military activities against the US I would be shiteing myself. A nation with more firearms than citizens and a widespread and growing national "sport" of small arms warfare simulation. The natural evolution of warfare will be autonomous, self-directed kill platforms. Sending your citizens into an environment like that being brewed in the US would be a suicide mission. So, I guess maybe Russia and North Korea might attempt it, but most other nations would not. Any sort of "pacification" and control of conquered territory will be done via annihilation (think Ghengis Khan and the wholesale slaughter of populations) via mechanized platforms. I give it maybe 5 years, 10 at the outside for this to be the reality.

Not to minimize mass shootings or homicides, even criminal on criminal violence, but do any of the "sensible gun laws" crowd consider how many crimes are deterred or halted by the defensive use of firearms by legal gun owners? Nearly every aspect of our lives involves a cost benefit analysis, whether done on a personal level or a societal level. The estimates I have seen are generally multiples of the gun deaths, which to me is a benefit.

Do provide a link to the credible data you reference. Thx

"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. There’s good reason to believe that most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets."

https://datavisualizations.heritage.org ... in-the-us/

[Typical Lax Dad]

Anyone here ever been to a "mock" firearm combat facility ("airsoft" - extremely hard and fast ceramic projectiles or paintball - hard, paint-filled projectiles that rupture on impact)? Particularly interesting are the underground facilities that approximate urban, close quarters engagement. It's almost as though the military reserve system has figured out a way to get "future" soldiers to train themselves.

Take a gander at the demographics of the participants if you do. Entire cohorts have been habituated to the idea and practice of ritualized gun violence. So, while they are breaking down any inhibitions about shooting other humans, they are improving their reaction time and proficiency.

Don't expect the number and frequency of "mass shootings" to go down.

If I were another nation contemplating any sort of military activities against the US I would be shiteing myself. A nation with more firearms than citizens and a widespread and growing national "sport" of small arms warfare simulation. The natural evolution of warfare will be autonomous, self-directed kill platforms. Sending your citizens into an environment like that being brewed in the US would be a suicide mission. So, I guess maybe Russia and North Korea might attempt it, but most other nations would not. Any sort of "pacification" and control of conquered territory will be done via annihilation (think Ghengis Khan and the wholesale slaughter of populations) via mechanized platforms. I give it maybe 5 years, 10 at the outside for this to be the reality.

Not to minimize mass shootings or homicides, even criminal on criminal violence, but do any of the "sensible gun laws" crowd consider how many crimes are deterred or halted by the defensive use of firearms by legal gun owners? Nearly every aspect of our lives involves a cost benefit analysis, whether done on a personal level or a societal level. The estimates I have seen are generally multiples of the gun deaths, which to me is a benefit.

Do provide a link to the credible data you reference. Thx

"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. There’s good reason to believe that most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets."

https://datavisualizations.heritage.org ... in-the-us/

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/fire ... gun-use-2/

https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/defens ... with-guns/

I don’t know a single person that used a weapon for defensive purposes but know plenty that have used a weapon for offensive or was the victim of offensive gun violence.

[RedFromMI]

And that Harvard paper has a lot of references within.

[Typical Lax Dad]

And that Harvard paper has a lot of references within.

Trying to find what I can. Personal experience tells me that we ain’t seeing a lot of criminals chased off by good guy with a gun.

[Kismet]

Anyone here ever been to a "mock" firearm combat facility ("airsoft" - extremely hard and fast ceramic projectiles or paintball - hard, paint-filled projectiles that rupture on impact)? Particularly interesting are the underground facilities that approximate urban, close quarters engagement. It's almost as though the military reserve system has figured out a way to get "future" soldiers to train themselves.

Take a gander at the demographics of the participants if you do. Entire cohorts have been habituated to the idea and practice of ritualized gun violence. So, while they are breaking down any inhibitions about shooting other humans, they are improving their reaction time and proficiency.

Don't expect the number and frequency of "mass shootings" to go down.

If I were another nation contemplating any sort of military activities against the US I would be shiteing myself. A nation with more firearms than citizens and a widespread and growing national "sport" of small arms warfare simulation. The natural evolution of warfare will be autonomous, self-directed kill platforms. Sending your citizens into an environment like that being brewed in the US would be a suicide mission. So, I guess maybe Russia and North Korea might attempt it, but most other nations would not. Any sort of "pacification" and control of conquered territory will be done via annihilation (think Ghengis Khan and the wholesale slaughter of populations) via mechanized platforms. I give it maybe 5 years, 10 at the outside for this to be the reality.

Not to minimize mass shootings or homicides, even criminal on criminal violence, but do any of the "sensible gun laws" crowd consider how many crimes are deterred or halted by the defensive use of firearms by legal gun owners? Nearly every aspect of our lives involves a cost benefit analysis, whether done on a personal level or a societal level. The estimates I have seen are generally multiples of the gun deaths, which to me is a benefit.

Do provide a link to the credible data you reference. Thx

"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. There’s good reason to believe that most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets."

https://datavisualizations.heritage.org ... in-the-us/

We can always count on those Heritage Foundation folks to back up the gun lobby. CDC data they mention is from 10 years ago (maybe because they pro gun folks have managed to de-fund the research during the former DOPUS administration especially)
Funny there haven't been ANY reports since January 1 and we are already at 39 mass shooting incidents and nearly 60 dead.

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/repo ... s-shooting

If you don't think that there's a problem, not much point in having a discussion of what to do - except make and buy more weapons, maybe what you appear to be advocating. .

[PizzaSnake]

Anyone here ever been to a "mock" firearm combat facility ("airsoft" - extremely hard and fast ceramic projectiles or paintball - hard, paint-filled projectiles that rupture on impact)? Particularly interesting are the underground facilities that approximate urban, close quarters engagement. It's almost as though the military reserve system has figured out a way to get "future" soldiers to train themselves.

Take a gander at the demographics of the participants if you do. Entire cohorts have been habituated to the idea and practice of ritualized gun violence. So, while they are breaking down any inhibitions about shooting other humans, they are improving their reaction time and proficiency.

Don't expect the number and frequency of "mass shootings" to go down.

If I were another nation contemplating any sort of military activities against the US I would be shiteing myself. A nation with more firearms than citizens and a widespread and growing national "sport" of small arms warfare simulation. The natural evolution of warfare will be autonomous, self-directed kill platforms. Sending your citizens into an environment like that being brewed in the US would be a suicide mission. So, I guess maybe Russia and North Korea might attempt it, but most other nations would not. Any sort of "pacification" and control of conquered territory will be done via annihilation (think Ghengis Khan and the wholesale slaughter of populations) via mechanized platforms. I give it maybe 5 years, 10 at the outside for this to be the reality.

Not to minimize mass shootings or homicides, even criminal on criminal violence, but do any of the "sensible gun laws" crowd consider how many crimes are deterred or halted by the defensive use of firearms by legal gun owners? Nearly every aspect of our lives involves a cost benefit analysis, whether done on a personal level or a societal level. The estimates I have seen are generally multiples of the gun deaths, which to me is a benefit.

Non sequitur.

Why did you respond to my post as yours has no logical relation.

[get it to x]

Anyone here ever been to a "mock" firearm combat facility ("airsoft" - extremely hard and fast ceramic projectiles or paintball - hard, paint-filled projectiles that rupture on impact)? Particularly interesting are the underground facilities that approximate urban, close quarters engagement. It's almost as though the military reserve system has figured out a way to get "future" soldiers to train themselves.

Take a gander at the demographics of the participants if you do. Entire cohorts have been habituated to the idea and practice of ritualized gun violence. So, while they are breaking down any inhibitions about shooting other humans, they are improving their reaction time and proficiency.

Don't expect the number and frequency of "mass shootings" to go down.

If I were another nation contemplating any sort of military activities against the US I would be shiteing myself. A nation with more firearms than citizens and a widespread and growing national "sport" of small arms warfare simulation. The natural evolution of warfare will be autonomous, self-directed kill platforms. Sending your citizens into an environment like that being brewed in the US would be a suicide mission. So, I guess maybe Russia and North Korea might attempt it, but most other nations would not. Any sort of "pacification" and control of conquered territory will be done via annihilation (think Ghengis Khan and the wholesale slaughter of populations) via mechanized platforms. I give it maybe 5 years, 10 at the outside for this to be the reality.

Not to minimize mass shootings or homicides, even criminal on criminal violence, but do any of the "sensible gun laws" crowd consider how many crimes are deterred or halted by the defensive use of firearms by legal gun owners? Nearly every aspect of our lives involves a cost benefit analysis, whether done on a personal level or a societal level. The estimates I have seen are generally multiples of the gun deaths, which to me is a benefit.

Non sequitur.

Why did you respond to my post as yours has no logical relation.

You are correct. I meant to hit the "Post Reply" button. My apologies.

[get it to x]

I don’t know a single person that used a weapon for defensive purposes but know plenty that have used a weapon for offensive or was the victim of offensive gun violence.

Pauline Kael and you have a lot in common. She said "I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them."

A Georgetown University professor commissioned this 2021 study:

FTA

"Thirty-one percent of the gun owners said they had used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on multiple occasions. As in previous research, the vast majority of such incidents (82 percent) did not involve firing a gun, let alone injuring or killing an attacker. In more than four-fifths of the cases, respondents reported that brandishing or mentioning a firearm was enough to eliminate the threat.

That reality helps explain the wide divergence in estimates of defensive gun uses. The self-reports of gun owners may not be entirely reliable, since they could be exaggerated, mistaken, or dishonest. But limiting the analysis to cases in which an attacker was wounded or killed, or to incidents that were covered by newspapers or reported to the police, is bound to overlook much more common encounters with less dramatic outcomes.

About half of the defensive gun uses identified by the survey involved more than one assailant. Four-fifths occurred inside the gun owner's home or on his property, while 9 percent happened in a public place and 3 percent happened at work. The most commonly used firearms were handguns (66 percent), followed by shotguns (21 percent) and rifles (13 percent).

Based on the number of incidents that gun owners reported, English estimates that "guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year." That number does not include cases where people defended themselves with guns owned by others, which could help explain why English's figure is lower than a previous estimate by Florida State University criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Based on a 1993 telephone survey with a substantially smaller sample, Kleck and Gertz put the annual number at more than 2 million."

https://reason.com/2022/09/09/the-large ... is-common/

[Typical Lax Dad]

I don’t know a single person that used a weapon for defensive purposes but know plenty that have used a weapon for offensive or was the victim of offensive gun violence.

Pauline Kael and you have a lot in common. She said "I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them."

A Georgetown University professor commissioned this 2021 study:

FTA

"Thirty-one percent of the gun owners said they had used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on multiple occasions. As in previous research, the vast majority of such incidents (82 percent) did not involve firing a gun, let alone injuring or killing an attacker. In more than four-fifths of the cases, respondents reported that brandishing or mentioning a firearm was enough to eliminate the threat.

That reality helps explain the wide divergence in estimates of defensive gun uses. The self-reports of gun owners may not be entirely reliable, since they could be exaggerated, mistaken, or dishonest. But limiting the analysis to cases in which an attacker was wounded or killed, or to incidents that were covered by newspapers or reported to the police, is bound to overlook much more common encounters with less dramatic outcomes.

About half of the defensive gun uses identified by the survey involved more than one assailant. Four-fifths occurred inside the gun owner's home or on his property, while 9 percent happened in a public place and 3 percent happened at work. The most commonly used firearms were handguns (66 percent), followed by shotguns (21 percent) and rifles (13 percent).

Based on the number of incidents that gun owners reported, English estimates that "guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year." That number does not include cases where people defended themselves with guns owned by others, which could help explain why English's figure is lower than a previous estimate by Florida State University criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Based on a 1993 telephone survey with a substantially smaller sample, Kleck and Gertz put the annual number at more than 2 million."

https://reason.com/2022/09/09/the-large ... is-common/

I am speaking of personal acquaintances.

[get it to x]

I don’t know a single person that used a weapon for defensive purposes but know plenty that have used a weapon for offensive or was the victim of offensive gun violence.

Pauline Kael and you have a lot in common. She said "I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them."

A Georgetown University professor commissioned this 2021 study:

FTA

"Thirty-one percent of the gun owners said they had used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on multiple occasions. As in previous research, the vast majority of such incidents (82 percent) did not involve firing a gun, let alone injuring or killing an attacker. In more than four-fifths of the cases, respondents reported that brandishing or mentioning a firearm was enough to eliminate the threat.

That reality helps explain the wide divergence in estimates of defensive gun uses. The self-reports of gun owners may not be entirely reliable, since they could be exaggerated, mistaken, or dishonest. But limiting the analysis to cases in which an attacker was wounded or killed, or to incidents that were covered by newspapers or reported to the police, is bound to overlook much more common encounters with less dramatic outcomes.

About half of the defensive gun uses identified by the survey involved more than one assailant. Four-fifths occurred inside the gun owner's home or on his property, while 9 percent happened in a public place and 3 percent happened at work. The most commonly used firearms were handguns (66 percent), followed by shotguns (21 percent) and rifles (13 percent).

Based on the number of incidents that gun owners reported, English estimates that "guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year." That number does not include cases where people defended themselves with guns owned by others, which could help explain why English's figure is lower than a previous estimate by Florida State University criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Based on a 1993 telephone survey with a substantially smaller sample, Kleck and Gertz put the annual number at more than 2 million."

https://reason.com/2022/09/09/the-large ... is-common/

I am speaking of personal acquaintances.

Right. I thought I would give you something with a larger sample size.

[MDlaxfan76]

I don’t know a single person that used a weapon for defensive purposes but know plenty that have used a weapon for offensive or was the victim of offensive gun violence.

Pauline Kael and you have a lot in common. She said "I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them."

A Georgetown University professor commissioned this 2021 study:

FTA

"Thirty-one percent of the gun owners said they had used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on multiple occasions. As in previous research, the vast majority of such incidents (82 percent) did not involve firing a gun, let alone injuring or killing an attacker. In more than four-fifths of the cases, respondents reported that brandishing or mentioning a firearm was enough to eliminate the threat.

That reality helps explain the wide divergence in estimates of defensive gun uses. The self-reports of gun owners may not be entirely reliable, since they could be exaggerated, mistaken, or dishonest. But limiting the analysis to cases in which an attacker was wounded or killed, or to incidents that were covered by newspapers or reported to the police, is bound to overlook much more common encounters with less dramatic outcomes.

About half of the defensive gun uses identified by the survey involved more than one assailant. Four-fifths occurred inside the gun owner's home or on his property, while 9 percent happened in a public place and 3 percent happened at work. The most commonly used firearms were handguns (66 percent), followed by shotguns (21 percent) and rifles (13 percent).

Based on the number of incidents that gun owners reported, English estimates that "guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year." That number does not include cases where people defended themselves with guns owned by others, which could help explain why English's figure is lower than a previous estimate by Florida State University criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Based on a 1993 telephone survey with a substantially smaller sample, Kleck and Gertz put the annual number at more than 2 million."

https://reason.com/2022/09/09/the-large ... is-common/

I am speaking of personal acquaintances.

Right. I thought I would give you something with a larger sample size.

As a teenager in the '70's I had a party which got out of control, too many people, lots not invited. Like a total idiot, I brandished my shotgun, cranked it, and yelled at people to get out...it wasn't loaded, but pure idiocy.

That the sort of thing, get it to X, you're citing? Protecting my "property"???

sheesh, I should called 911 and taken my lumps for a party out of control.
In the current era, some other idiot might have shot me with the handgun they were carrying.
They could have claimed they were "protecting themselves" under this logic...

Idiocy.

[PizzaSnake]

I don’t know a single person that used a weapon for defensive purposes but know plenty that have used a weapon for offensive or was the victim of offensive gun violence.

Pauline Kael and you have a lot in common. She said "I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them."

A Georgetown University professor commissioned this 2021 study:

FTA

"Thirty-one percent of the gun owners said they had used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on multiple occasions. As in previous research, the vast majority of such incidents (82 percent) did not involve firing a gun, let alone injuring or killing an attacker. In more than four-fifths of the cases, respondents reported that brandishing or mentioning a firearm was enough to eliminate the threat.

That reality helps explain the wide divergence in estimates of defensive gun uses. The self-reports of gun owners may not be entirely reliable, since they could be exaggerated, mistaken, or dishonest. But limiting the analysis to cases in which an attacker was wounded or killed, or to incidents that were covered by newspapers or reported to the police, is bound to overlook much more common encounters with less dramatic outcomes.

About half of the defensive gun uses identified by the survey involved more than one assailant. Four-fifths occurred inside the gun owner's home or on his property, while 9 percent happened in a public place and 3 percent happened at work. The most commonly used firearms were handguns (66 percent), followed by shotguns (21 percent) and rifles (13 percent).

Based on the number of incidents that gun owners reported, English estimates that "guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year." That number does not include cases where people defended themselves with guns owned by others, which could help explain why English's figure is lower than a previous estimate by Florida State University criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Based on a 1993 telephone survey with a substantially smaller sample, Kleck and Gertz put the annual number at more than 2 million."

https://reason.com/2022/09/09/the-large ... is-common/

I am speaking of personal acquaintances.

Sorry, misquote. This is intended for get it to x, not TLD.

Per my bolded "notations" above, I would remark that without seeing the study design, and particularly any mechanism for validation of respondent assertion, that any conclusions drwawn would be of dubious value.

Do you have the name of the study and the principal investigator as well as name the of publisher (and validating journal or publication)?

[get it to x]

I don’t know a single person that used a weapon for defensive purposes but know plenty that have used a weapon for offensive or was the victim of offensive gun violence.

Pauline Kael and you have a lot in common. She said "I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them."

A Georgetown University professor commissioned this 2021 study:

FTA

"Thirty-one percent of the gun owners said they had used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on multiple occasions. As in previous research, the vast majority of such incidents (82 percent) did not involve firing a gun, let alone injuring or killing an attacker. In more than four-fifths of the cases, respondents reported that brandishing or mentioning a firearm was enough to eliminate the threat.

That reality helps explain the wide divergence in estimates of defensive gun uses. The self-reports of gun owners may not be entirely reliable, since they could be exaggerated, mistaken, or dishonest. But limiting the analysis to cases in which an attacker was wounded or killed, or to incidents that were covered by newspapers or reported to the police, is bound to overlook much more common encounters with less dramatic outcomes.

About half of the defensive gun uses identified by the survey involved more than one assailant. Four-fifths occurred inside the gun owner's home or on his property, while 9 percent happened in a public place and 3 percent happened at work. The most commonly used firearms were handguns (66 percent), followed by shotguns (21 percent) and rifles (13 percent).

Based on the number of incidents that gun owners reported, English estimates that "guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year." That number does not include cases where people defended themselves with guns owned by others, which could help explain why English's figure is lower than a previous estimate by Florida State University criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Based on a 1993 telephone survey with a substantially smaller sample, Kleck and Gertz put the annual number at more than 2 million."

https://reason.com/2022/09/09/the-large ... is-common/

I am speaking of personal acquaintances.

Sorry, misquote. This is intended for get it to x, not TLD.

Per my bolded "notations" above, I would remark that without seeing the study design, and particularly any mechanism for validation of respondent assertion, that any conclusions drwawn would be of dubious value.

Do you have the name of the study and the principal investigator as well as name the of publisher (and validating journal or publication)?

This is from the link I posted. The entire study results updated to 2022.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=4109494

FTA

"This survey employs five common devices to encourage more truthful responses. First, it uses an indirect “teaser” question to pre-screen respondents in order to select those who own firearms. The initial question prompt presents the survey as concerned with “recreational opportunities and related public policies” and asks respondents if they own any of the following items, presented in a random order: Bicycle, Canoe or Kayak, Firearm, Rock, Climbing Equipment, None of the Above. Only those who select “Firearm” are then presented the full survey. We also ask demographic questions at the outset, which allows us to assess the representativeness of the sample, including those who do not indicate firearms
ownership.

Second, the survey was carefully phrased so as to not suggest animus towards gun
owners or ignorance of firearms-related terminology.

Third, the survey assures respondentsof anonymity.

Fourth, in order to ensure that respondents are reading the survey questions
carefully, and then responding with considered answers thereto, a “disqualifying” question
(sometimes referred to as a “screening” question) was embedded a little over half of the way
through the survey instructing respondents to select a particular answer for that question,
which only those who read the question in its entirety would understand. Anyone registering
an incorrect answer to this question was disqualified from the survey and their responses to
any of the survey questions were neither considered nor tallied.

Finally, while responses were required for basic demographic questions, if questions of a
sensitive nature were left blank, the software would first call attention to the blank response
and prompt the respondent to enter a response. However, if a respondent persisted in not
responding and again tried to progress, rather than kick them out of the survey, they would
be allowed to progress to the next section in the interest of obtaining the maximum amount
of information that they were willing to share. Respondents were not made aware of this
possibility in advance, and in practice such “opting out” of a particular question was seldom
done (less than 1% of responses for the average question). This is the reason that small
variations are sometimes observed in the total number of respondents for certain question