Guns as a Self defense Study (1 Viewer)

[jet57]

So here's a very interesting article on a study done that highlights the rarity of gun used for self defense as opposed to other gun violence. It's worth a look.

Using Guns In Self-Defense Is Rare, Study Finds

American gun owners are far more likely to injure themselves or someone else with their firearm than to stop a criminal, according to a new study from a group calling for tighter gun control.

The study, released Wednesday by the Violence Policy Center, found there were 258 justifiable homicides involving civilians using firearms in 2012, compared with 8,342 murders by gun. Even if a criminal isn't shot down, the study found that civilians rarely use guns to protect themselves. "Intended victims of property crimes engaged in self-protective behavior with a firearm" only 0.1 percent of the times they were targeted by a crook.

The report, titled "Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use" relied on FBI and Bureau of Justice data. The Violence Policy Center said the report disproves the premise of arguments by the National Rifle Association that more guns in the hands of regular people will reduce crime.

 

[MrT]

Here is a link to the actual study for those folks who are going to dismiss this article because it is hosted at the Huffington Post

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

I would also like to challenge the individuals who are about to say use the "unreported instances" as a reason to dimiss this study to deal with this issue: We routinely reject scientific theories because they are untestable, so how would you propose that we test your theory that guns are used much more often in self-defense, but they are not reported? And how would you propose that we ensure these instances are legal and justifiable instances of self-defense?

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Here is a link to the actual study for those folks who are going to dismiss this article because it is hosted at the Huffington Post

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

mmmm yes, we just dismiss it because we don't agree with it, not because it can contain factual errors of any kind. :roll:

Just give me some time. I'll shoot it down like I shot down your CT gun control = 40% drop in homicide link.

 

[TurtleDude]

So here's a very interesting article on a study done that highlights the rarity of gun used for self defense as opposed to other gun violence. It's worth a look.

Using Guns In Self-Defense Is Rare, Study Finds

a crappy bit of propaganda coming from a well known gun ban site. The VPC is well known as perhaps the most dishonest of any of the actors in the gun ban movement. A

 

[TurtleDude]

Here is a link to the actual study for those folks who are going to dismiss this article because it is hosted at the Huffington Post

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

The VPC is far worse than Huff and Puff. VPC is run by an asshole who was thrown out of the Brady Bunch for admitting that their goal was to ban guns.

He's the asshole who told the press to deliberately confuse people over what an assault weapon was

a completely worthless turd when it comes to honest studies

the study tries to compare legal uses of firearms for defense with illegal uses of firearms mainly by people who cannot legally own firearms

what is interesting is studies by people Like Kleck and Lott were not funded by the NRA or pro rights groups. that's why those studies have far more credibility than ones that start off with an agenda-that agenda being to ban guns

 

[MrT]

I would also like to challenge the individuals who are about to say use the "unreported instances" as a reason to dimiss this study to deal with this issue: We routinely reject scientific theories because they are untestable, so how would you propose that we test your theory that guns are used much more often in self-defense, but they are not reported? And how would you propose that we ensure these instances are legal and justifiable instances of self-defense?

 

[Gaius46]

That's nice. And it's information that people who are deciding on whether to purchase a gun for self defense should factor into the decision but it is not in any way, shape or form a justification for government to make that decision for individuals.

 

[TurtleDude]

I would also like to challenge the individuals who are about to say use the "unreported instances" as a reason to dimiss this study to deal with this issue: We routinely reject scientific theories because they are untestable, so how would you propose that we test your theory that guns are used much more often in self-defense, but they are not reported? And how would you propose that we ensure these instances are legal and justifiable instances of self-defense?

we don't care. what we do know is you want to ban guns and its not for public safety. So us arguing with you about crime control or what studies are valid is a waste of time because you aren't going to care if we can prove that gun bans won't decrease crime etc

its a mistake gun owners engage in-arguing public safety with banners. The banners correctly note that most of the Sheeple will not have enough wattage or desire to really care-they will side with the bleatings for more "safety" even though the evidence is marginal-at best.

the proper way of engaging the banners is to call them out on their real motivations. and that is to harass lawful gun owners and to try to diminish the electoral power of groups like the NRA

 

[Goshin]

So here's a very interesting article on a study done that highlights the rarity of gun used for self defense as opposed to other gun violence. It's worth a look.

Using Guns In Self-Defense Is Rare, Study Finds

Bull ****.


Even the government's NCVS study, which was not about gun defense use, estimated DGU's around 80-100,000 annually. Many other studies conducted by universities and independent researchers have calculated probable DGU's in the hundreds of thousands or higher. Most such incidents do not involve anyone getting shot; indeed the majority involve no shots fired at all: The gun is shown and the criminal runs away in the vast majority of cases.


A mid-range figure from all the various studies would indicate DGU's probably run between 200,00-500,000 annually.



Anecdotally, no one in my extended family has ever shot someone unlawfully or by accident, yet we've had several DGUs within living memory. I've personally had at least two situations as a civilian where being armed probably stopped an attempted mugging or assault, and my household is currently enjoying peace and security from a crazy drug addict who'd LIKE to bother us but doesn't dare because he doesn't want to get shot. So, your biased studies aren't cutting any ice with me, obviously.

 

[jamesrage]

Here is a link to the actual study for those folks who are going to dismiss this article because it is hosted at the Huffington Post

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

I would also like to challenge the individuals who are about to say use the "unreported instances" as a reason to dimiss this study to deal with this issue: We routinely reject scientific theories because they are untestable, so how would you propose that we test your theory that guns are used much more often in self-defense, but they are not reported? And how would you propose that we ensure these instances are legal and justifiable instances of self-defense?

A VPC study on guns is the equivalent of a study about racial minorities by the KKK or a study about eating meat by PETA.

 

[countryboy]

So here's a very interesting article on a study done that highlights the rarity of gun used for self defense as opposed to other gun violence. It's worth a look.

Using Guns In Self-Defense Is Rare, Study Finds

Why should we believe this study? Obama's own study concluded exactly the opposite. I assume inflated stats coupled with including suicide is what got them to their forgone conclusion.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I, as most people, have never had brain cancer yet that does not make it a good idea not to carry a medical care insurance policy that includes payment for brain cancer treatment. The same applies to having a gun for self defense - it is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. Using the alleged rarity of DGU to prevent anyone from the possibility of legal DGU makes no sense at all.

The VPC attempts to use the lack of "hard" prevented crime statistics in a very dishonest way. There are likely no "hard" statistics for the number of times folks elected brake, accelerate or swerve to avoid a collision (how many avoided collisions have you ever reported?) yet that rarity is not a valid reason to remove those options for all drivers.

 

[LagerHead]

So here's a very interesting article on a study done that highlights the rarity of gun used for self defense as opposed to other gun violence. It's worth a look.

Using Guns In Self-Defense Is Rare, Study Finds

The VPC has slightly less credibility on the subject of gun control than the KKK does on the subject of race relations. They wouldn't know objectivity or data if it took a massive, steaming dump on their faces. So no, it's not worth a look. Everything they've ever published has been debunked, usually by a retarded third grader before the ink was dry.

 

[Crimefree]

So here's a very interesting article on a study done that highlights the rarity of gun used for self defense as opposed to other gun violence. It's worth a look.

Using Guns In Self-Defense Is Rare, Study Finds

Dredging in gun controls cesspool again?

How how do you suppose that stacks up to the some 21 Defensive Gun Use studies that exists and that it works well. The only point of arguments is how well. All 21 are wrong? Or this study you presented is a gun control brain fart? Which is it?

 

[beerftw]

The VPC is far worse than Huff and Puff. VPC is run by an asshole who was thrown out of the Brady Bunch for admitting that their goal was to ban guns.

He's the asshole who told the press to deliberately confuse people over what an assault weapon was

a completely worthless turd when it comes to honest studies

the study tries to compare legal uses of firearms for defense with illegal uses of firearms mainly by people who cannot legally own firearms

what is interesting is studies by people Like Kleck and Lott were not funded by the NRA or pro rights groups. that's why those studies have far more credibility than ones that start off with an agenda-that agenda being to ban guns

so you are saying he is a gun banner so extreme a group of gun banners kicked him out for being too anti gun:shock:

 

[TurtleDude]

Dredging in gun controls cesspool again?

How how do you suppose that stacks up to the some 21 Defensive Gun Use studies that exists and that it works well. The only point of arguments is how well. All 21 are wrong? Or this study you presented is a gun control brain fart? Which is it?

The Vile Pile of Collectivism starts with a premise-Guns are bad and gun owners oppose the socialist goals of the feces who run the Vile Pile. SO they work backward to try to prove guns are bad and gun owners are evil. They have one of the worst credibility rates with object researchers because they are known liars. The head turd-Josh Sugarmann is a well known marxist agitator who was once head of a leftist propaganda center known as "The New Right Watch". He's a lying POS who told the press to lie about assault weapons and my favorite from him was his butt hurt whining when gun makers-in response to the idiotic 10 round magazine limit-started SCALING DOWN full sized pistols to 10 round magazines. Josh had a melt down claiming that the makers were creating "powerful concealable pocket rockets" rather than keep making mainly full sized pistols designed for 14-19 round magazines that were no longer legally able to be sold
He also is the starter-along with his butt boy Tom Diaz-of the jihad against "sniper rifles"

anyone who is well versed in the gun debate knows that citing the VPC for support pretty much brands you as not a serious player and incredibly biased to boot

 

[haymarket]

a crappy bit of propaganda coming from a well known gun ban site. The VPC is well known as perhaps the most dishonest of any of the actors in the gun ban movement. A

So the quoted numbers are factually incorrect?

 

[TurtleDude]

so you are saying he is a gun banner so extreme a group of gun banners kicked him out for being too anti gun:shock:

1) he was a marxist agitator-Brady was a gun banner but no marxist

2) he told the public what the Brady's really wanted and that pissed them off. They didn't want the sheeple to think that the Brady thugs wanted gun bans. He spilled the beans on that "moderate" group

 

[LagerHead]

Dredging in gun controls cesspool again?

How how do you suppose that stacks up to the some 21 Defensive Gun Use studies that exists and that it works well. The only point of arguments is how well. All 21 are wrong? Or this study you presented is a gun control brain fart? Which is it?

Brother, the validity of gun control studies is 100% tied to the careful wording of the conclusions that were preconceive...er, I of course mean reached during the "scientific" execution of them. For example, a study from (I believe) 1984 by a Dr. Arthur Kellerman clearly showed that you are 2.5 times more likely to be killed with your own gun than to kill an intruder with it. Technically the finding is actually correct. The key word, however, is "kill."

But it is also extremely misleading. It clearly implies that self defense with guns is an exercise in futility. What the study doesn't tell you is that approximately 60% of deaths with handguns are by suicide, a rate that has been shown to be unaffected by the presence of guns. It also completely ignores the fact that almost all defensive uses of guns don't involve even firing a single shot and that among those where shots are fired it is far more common to injure rather than kill an attacker.

In other words, if the study had "concluded" that you are 2.5 times more likely to be killed with your own gun that to use it in self defense, it would be as incorrect as someone claiming that the moon is made of Domino's Deep Dish Pizza. However, they carefully worded the findings so that it was both true and practically force fed one an incorrect conclusion at the same time.

The VPC is notorious for tactics exactly like Dr. Kellerman. Their studies are more full of holes than old world Swiss cheese. I could find more verifiable and objective facts in a fart. Those at the VPC and those quoting them as a "source" are "mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence."

 

[tech30528]

Here is a link to the actual study for those folks who are going to dismiss this article because it is hosted at the Huffington Post

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

I would also like to challenge the individuals who are about to say use the "unreported instances" as a reason to dimiss this study to deal with this issue: We routinely reject scientific theories because they are untestable, so how would you propose that we test your theory that guns are used much more often in self-defense, but they are not reported? And how would you propose that we ensure these instances are legal and justifiable instances of self-defense?

I would use my own experience. I've fired thousands of rounds, have used my carry pistol twice to defuse situations that were going bad and neither time had to fire a round. Nor was either incident reported. So those were not counted. I have never shot anyone or had a negligent discharge. So that's one gun owner and 2 saves, and no accidents. I don't care if you believe it or not. If you don't like guns don't buy one, simple as that. But I would bet that several survivors of that church shooting have changed their minds.

 

[jet57]

That's nice. And it's information that people who are deciding on whether to purchase a gun for self defense should factor into the decision but it is not in any way, shape or form a justification for government to make that decision for individuals.

Is it government, or is it people demanding that government so something about it? There was another shooting at the GS Warriors parade today...

People are getting very upset about all of this nonsense, and it's being said that the NRA is no better than the tobacco industry, so you can look forward to that campaign as well.

 

[jet57]

Bull ****.


Even the government's NCVS study, which was not about gun defense use, estimated DGU's around 80-100,000 annually. Many other studies conducted by universities and independent researchers have calculated probable DGU's in the hundreds of thousands or higher. Most such incidents do not involve anyone getting shot; indeed the majority involve no shots fired at all: The gun is shown and the criminal runs away in the vast majority of cases.


A mid-range figure from all the various studies would indicate DGU's probably run between 200,00-500,000 annually.



Anecdotally, no one in my extended family has ever shot someone unlawfully or by accident, yet we've had several DGUs within living memory. I've personally had at least two situations as a civilian where being armed probably stopped an attempted mugging or assault, and my household is currently enjoying peace and security from a crazy drug addict who'd LIKE to bother us but doesn't dare because he doesn't want to get shot. So, your biased studies aren't cutting any ice with me, obviously.

So, prove the study wrong then. Look, all I'm saying is that IF the gun crowd doesn't get on the positive side of this argument, then they (you all here as well) will and are really to be seen as part of the problem. So, you guys can yak all you want about what you think is right or wrong with studies etc, but the ultimate hand is going to come down here pretty quick in this country if we don't get our **** together.

This whole CCW thing is simply political grandstanding wrapped once again in our abused flag and studies like this are proving it. I - would be more concerned about the handwriting on the wall than to just stand up and shout "bull ****" every time someone pins (you) to the mat.

 

[jet57]

A VPC study on guns is the equivalent of a study about racial minorities by the KKK or a study about eating meat by PETA.

In a KKK world, racial minorities have a problem. In the real world, the KKK has a problem.

 

[jet57]

Why should we believe this study? Obama's own study concluded exactly the opposite. I assume inflated stats coupled with including suicide is what got them to their forgone conclusion.

What Obama study?

So why don't you prove the study wrong? Any boob can say; "it's all BS! It's all made up!"

So you don't see the storm clouds gathering either do you.

So - here's a conspiracy theory for you... What if, it really is the NRA - using it's minions (the gun nut crowd), who are actually conspiring to destroy the 2nd amendment...?

Think on that a while, and then get back to me.

 

[jet57]

I, as most people, have never had brain cancer yet that does not make it a good idea not to carry a medical care insurance policy that includes payment for brain cancer treatment. The same applies to having a gun for self defense - it is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. Using the alleged rarity of DGU to prevent anyone from the possibility of legal DGU makes no sense at all.

The VPC attempts to use the lack of "hard" prevented crime statistics in a very dishonest way. There are likely no "hard" statistics for the number of times folks elected brake, accelerate or swerve to avoid a collision (how many avoided collisions have you ever reported?) yet that rarity is not a valid reason to remove those options for all drivers.

I think that you are completely missing the point. The study does not argue that CCW is necessarily bad because people don't sometimes need to pack; which for the record, I agree can assist someone under threat, the study is aimed at the political discourse surrounding the subject and making the point that "self defense" as such is a rarity.

Now, for my money, I say that most every video I've seen on CCW self defense, shows the "hero" shooting the "criminal" in the back...