aphar

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows spews the following not so obvious lies.

Guns used for crime prevention

Emphasis mine:

In 1995 Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, ... randomly surveyed 5,000 Americans and asked if they, or another member of the household, had used a gun for self-protection in the past year. A little more than 1 percent of the participants answered yes,... extrapolated [to] Americans use guns for self-defense as many as 2.5 million times a year.

This is "contradicted" by (emphasis mine):

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) suggests that victims use guns for self-defense only 65,000 times a year... The NCVS first establishes that someone has been the victim of an attack before asking about self-defense gun use, which weeds out yes answers from people who might, say, wave their gun around during a bar fight and call it self-defense.

According to this perverted logic, rabies vaccine does not help against rabies because first we need to establish that the patient has actually fell ill before we can decide on the efficacy of the treatment.

IOW, the base population should be all people bitten by a rabid animal (that's what Kleck did), and not people who actually developed the symptoms (that's what NCVS did).

If one has been the victim, it already means that the self-defense failed.

If one waved their gun around and walked away unscathed, the gun was used successfully to prevent a crime.

Yes, guns are rarely shot in self-defense - but shooting is the last resort.
The main use of a gun in self-defense is "wave it around", or even just indicate that you have it.

Who are the victims?

The article claims that

But a January 2017 study reported that when “stand your ground” was passed in Florida, the monthly homicide rate went up by nearly a quarter. And a 2012 study found that states that adopted these laws experienced an abrupt and sustained 8 percent increase in homicides relative to other states.

Who are the victims of these homicides?

If X stands his ground instead of being robbed and shoots Y, then we see a homicide instead of a robbery, but one could argue that this is a desirable effect.

Who are the perpetrators?

The authors fail to mention that the vast majority of guns used in crime are already illegal.
IOW, reduction of legal firearms can only have a trivial effect on gun crime.