Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996

CDC Survey supports Kleck

Recommended Posts

Suggested Reading -- 4/21


CDC Survey (not published) supports Gary Kleck Findings




Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.

Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.



this is direct contradiction of the Arthur Kellerman study in the NEJM that claimed "a gun in the home is 43 times as likely to shoot someone in the family as to shoot a criminal. "


this was discussed later by David Kopel --see    The Fallacy of "43 to 1"


it's a bit of a dead fight though -- either side is just going to "Call BS" on the other.   


I'm offering this posting this morning though as I find it interesting  that CDC research to support Kleck has been brought to light.   not just that the unpublished research supports Kleck -- worse -- that CDC didn't publish the results.


AFAIK CDC is government funded: their report,----- is public property.




Share this post

Link to post

see also   Broward County Sheriff Faces ‘Vote of No Confidence’ from Deputies





Florida House speaker Richard Corcoran and 73 fellow lawmakers sent a letter to governor Rick Scott asking that he dismiss Israel for “incompetence and neglect of duty.”



Share this post

Link to post

Thanks for the update Grampaw Willie, good info.

Share this post

Link to post

( op ed )


It's a Matter of Language


The "Militia" -- is an armed force of the people.

The National Guard -- is an active reserve of the US Army


There are those who try to mix these up in an attempt to support their argument that the Second Amendment applies only to the National Guard. A strict "textualist" jurist will not accept such an argument. 


Strictly speaking the Second Amendment is a periodic sentence:  it's dependent clause occurs first:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,


ok,   -- go on

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,"


in order to raise a militia -- the people must be possessed of arms, therefore the people may not be disarmed.


I have the following on file; I need to read the Miller decision to verify that it is correct though,--


"The signification attributed to the term, Militia, appear from the
debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and
States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly
enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting
in concert for the common defense... And further, that ordinarily when
called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms
supplied by themselves and of a kind in common use at the time." US
Supreme Court, US v Miller


I'll try to get to this in the next day or so.


a quick check seems to indicate the quote is accurate enough...

Share this post

Link to post

Even without checking I could have told you that was Miller (1939).  I think that was quoted in Heller (2008).


That combined with the "Not within judicial notice " section of Miller could be construed to say that only "military grade " weapons are protected by the Constitution. 

Share this post

Link to post

Now that I'm back at my desk top:



In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.


Share this post

Link to post
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.