3 ms·

... for a very odd definition of 'protect'. 'Protect' in this case is a handgun. https://www.gunowners.org/wv26.htm https://www.gunowners.org/wv26.htm "... r

... for a very odd definition of 'protect'. 'Protect' in this case is a handgun. https://www.gunowners.org/wv26.htm https://www.gunowners.org/wv26.htm "... raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990)."

vacri 11y ago
Kleck is a ridiculously biased researcher. Some pearlers from his past include claiming that every survey-claimed DGU equalled a life saved[1], and that Australia would become a 'Wild West' in the wake of the '90s gun bans - Australia continues to be considerably safer than the US, twenty years down the track.[2] [1] Apparently "I claim I brandished my gun and a robber left me alone" is now a life saved, not a wallet saved. [2] The actual 'Wild West' in history was a much safer place than the movies would suggest, but I doubt Kleck was trying to evoke the historical image rather than the myth.
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  Vacri, that's not surprising - the level of anti-gun bias in academia suggests that there ought to be some pro-gun bias in there too. But that doesn't change the results of those findings, which are: if you want women to be able to actually prevent stranger rape, allowing themselves to carry guns is by far and away the most effective solution. Of course that doesn't address other social costs involved in having most of society carrying weapons. As Rand put it: "Handguns are instruments for killing people — they are not carried for hunting animals — and you have no right to kill people. You do have the right to self-defense, however. I don’t know how the issue is going to be resolved to protect you without giving you the privilege to kill people at whim.". Just bear in mind that one of the social costs of disarmament is that women are denied an effective tool for self defence. Panic buttons on cellphones really don't cut the mustard here.
  - vacri 11y ago
    > Just bear in mind that one of the social costs of disarmament is that women are denied an effective tool for self defence. This is just sloganistic nonsense. If this were the case, then here in 'disarmed' Australia, rape would be rife. Whereas over in the US where self-defence is a frothy notion, there isn't much difference in rape rates, a four-times higher murder rate, and a six-times higher incarceration rate. Meanwhile, over in South Africa, where there are guns aplenty, rape has a runaway crime rate. The idea that guns make you safe isn't born out when you do comparisons like this. But regarding Kleck, he's pretty much the go-to guy for the pro-gun lobby. And the pro-gun lobby in the US is pretty aware that good studies will show the flaws in what they say - which is why they apply pressure on the government to refuse to study the problem. If the numbers really would show a consistent story for the pro-gun lobby, they'd be welcoming studies with open arms. But as it stands, when someone posts a study supporting the pro-gun side, there's a better than even chance that you'll find Kleck's name on it, I find.
    - duncan_bayne 11y ago
      I'm Australian too, you know. But my politics often lead to me being mistaken for an American Libertarian. Flattering, I guess :) You're conflating several issues here though. Kleck was simply looking at one scenario: attempted rape by a stranger, when the victim had a firearm and used it. The stats on that are very, very firmly supportive of the idea that handguns are a good defence. I'm actually agreeing with you on the other social costs of an armed society, mind you. I don't think you read my post very clearly, and attributed to me a bunch of common positions (for Americans) that I don't actually hold.
      - vacri 11y ago
        > and used it You couldn't get more biased than this kind of selection for that sort of study. It's like saying that the chance of spending time in a holding cell is very high, if you only look at subjects who have just been arrested that day. And it's symptomatic of how Kleck is used - he does a study that is heavily specific to the conditions, and then it's quoted free of context from day 1 and generalised to things it shouldn't be generalised to. Similarly, 'carrying a gun' is very different to 'carrying a gun and using it' - you have to be able to access and use the gun at the right time, and you don't always have the drop on your attacker. I once did a bouncer certificate course, and the instructor said that in a study in Sydney, the most use of a gun in an encounter with an armed security guard was the guard's own gun used against them - people were getting the drop on security guards and turning their guns on them. And one place where women tend to meet their rapists - bars and clubs - is a place where guns are usually restricted even in US states where gun freedom is common. Texas, for example, has a 51% law, meaning if a business makes 51%+ of it's income from alcohol, you can't carry a gun there. Women in these higher-risk places can't legally carry this supposed magical defense item. Specifying "and using it" ignores all the issues around actually getting the gun into play at the right time, which aren't trivial. Ultimately, "carry guns" is a bad argument to make for personal safety, because it's treating the symptom, not the cure, and short-circuits discussion to actually cut social problems off at the source, I find. Re: the nationality thing - I never suggested you were American, but that's the place in the modern Western world that is doing the "guns as defence for normal citizens" thing (and it's where Kleck does his stuff). That's why it's a US-centric counter-argument. :)

vacri 11y ago

Kleck is a ridiculously biased researcher. Some pearlers from his past include claiming that every survey-claimed DGU equalled a life saved[1], and that Australia would become a 'Wild West' in the wake of the '90s gun bans - Australia continues to be considerably safer than the US, twenty years down the track.[2] [1] Apparently "I claim I brandished my gun and a robber left me alone" is now a life saved, not a wallet saved. [2] The actual 'Wild West' in history was a much safer place than the movies would suggest, but I doubt Kleck was trying to evoke the historical image rather than the myth.

duncan_bayne 11y ago
Vacri, that's not surprising - the level of anti-gun bias in academia suggests that there ought to be some pro-gun bias in there too. But that doesn't change the results of those findings, which are: if you want women to be able to actually prevent stranger rape, allowing themselves to carry guns is by far and away the most effective solution. Of course that doesn't address other social costs involved in having most of society carrying weapons. As Rand put it: "Handguns are instruments for killing people — they are not carried for hunting animals — and you have no right to kill people. You do have the right to self-defense, however. I don’t know how the issue is going to be resolved to protect you without giving you the privilege to kill people at whim.". Just bear in mind that one of the social costs of disarmament is that women are denied an effective tool for self defence. Panic buttons on cellphones really don't cut the mustard here.
- vacri 11y ago
  > Just bear in mind that one of the social costs of disarmament is that women are denied an effective tool for self defence. This is just sloganistic nonsense. If this were the case, then here in 'disarmed' Australia, rape would be rife. Whereas over in the US where self-defence is a frothy notion, there isn't much difference in rape rates, a four-times higher murder rate, and a six-times higher incarceration rate. Meanwhile, over in South Africa, where there are guns aplenty, rape has a runaway crime rate. The idea that guns make you safe isn't born out when you do comparisons like this. But regarding Kleck, he's pretty much the go-to guy for the pro-gun lobby. And the pro-gun lobby in the US is pretty aware that good studies will show the flaws in what they say - which is why they apply pressure on the government to refuse to study the problem. If the numbers really would show a consistent story for the pro-gun lobby, they'd be welcoming studies with open arms. But as it stands, when someone posts a study supporting the pro-gun side, there's a better than even chance that you'll find Kleck's name on it, I find.
  - duncan_bayne 11y ago
    I'm Australian too, you know. But my politics often lead to me being mistaken for an American Libertarian. Flattering, I guess :) You're conflating several issues here though. Kleck was simply looking at one scenario: attempted rape by a stranger, when the victim had a firearm and used it. The stats on that are very, very firmly supportive of the idea that handguns are a good defence. I'm actually agreeing with you on the other social costs of an armed society, mind you. I don't think you read my post very clearly, and attributed to me a bunch of common positions (for Americans) that I don't actually hold.
    - vacri 11y ago
      > and used it You couldn't get more biased than this kind of selection for that sort of study. It's like saying that the chance of spending time in a holding cell is very high, if you only look at subjects who have just been arrested that day. And it's symptomatic of how Kleck is used - he does a study that is heavily specific to the conditions, and then it's quoted free of context from day 1 and generalised to things it shouldn't be generalised to. Similarly, 'carrying a gun' is very different to 'carrying a gun and using it' - you have to be able to access and use the gun at the right time, and you don't always have the drop on your attacker. I once did a bouncer certificate course, and the instructor said that in a study in Sydney, the most use of a gun in an encounter with an armed security guard was the guard's own gun used against them - people were getting the drop on security guards and turning their guns on them. And one place where women tend to meet their rapists - bars and clubs - is a place where guns are usually restricted even in US states where gun freedom is common. Texas, for example, has a 51% law, meaning if a business makes 51%+ of it's income from alcohol, you can't carry a gun there. Women in these higher-risk places can't legally carry this supposed magical defense item. Specifying "and using it" ignores all the issues around actually getting the gun into play at the right time, which aren't trivial. Ultimately, "carry guns" is a bad argument to make for personal safety, because it's treating the symptom, not the cure, and short-circuits discussion to actually cut social problems off at the source, I find. Re: the nationality thing - I never suggested you were American, but that's the place in the modern Western world that is doing the "guns as defence for normal citizens" thing (and it's where Kleck does his stuff). That's why it's a US-centric counter-argument. :)