Is The NRA Wrong? New Study Shows Guns Rarely Used for Self-Defense

[EMNofSeattle]

Spread is because the numbers are "best guess" there is nothing resembling serious analysis............as is your explanation........ a guess

An educated guess based off of observable social effects and data.

In the end any effort to extrapolate data on a topic like defensive gun use that by nature is likely unreported more then half time using surveys and statistics from different places that compile data differently, is indeed much guesswork. But it's not invented out of thin air.

And that guesswork is far more relevant to this discussion then VPCs simple measurement of homicide numbers.
VPCs analysis does not prove the NRA wrong on anything as your thread title contends

 

[EMNofSeattle]

What about the findings that guns are seldom used for self defense?

That finding is not correct. As has been mentioned. The absolute lowest credible numbers out DGUs as occurring 6 times as frequently as firearm homicides

 

[imyoda]

Yes, I would agree in part with you. If you call the cops and they are on their way and will be at your home very soon, then THE LAST thing you need to be doing is poking around the place with a gun. The cops got a "man with a gun" call, and that is exactly what they will be looking for. If your shadow is what they see, then good luck and hope they have proper fire discipline. You WILL be betting your life on their training.

IF, however, the cops take a long time to get to your place, then you need to barricade yourself someplace and establish a fire zone that you can cover. Ensuring all of your loved ones are with you in the safe zone.

That last thing you want to happen is the intruder or three pounding on your door attempting to get in and all you can do is cower in the corner with a phone.

A shotgun or a high capacity magazine pistol is what you need in your hand at those moments.

THE PHYSICAL ABILITY TO MAKE THEM STOP is what you need....and a can of deodorant ain't gonna do it.

The study says that the chances it will happen to you makes the decision to have a gun more of a decision of a perceive event of fear.......

Rather than one intelligently based upon facts than emotions......

Of course the study in no way says/suggest a limit to freely decide what good for you.......

And it seems your reply is based on emotions rather than intellect......

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

I support the second amendment, and I think the NRA is about money and propaganda. I am glad this study is exposing the NRA for what it is. I don't really support the NRA. My dad was a member for a long time, and recently dropped his membership. I will never join the NRA unless drastic changes are made.

Agreed. I am a member of the Texas State Rifle Association (TSRA). More grassroots and politically active in defeating anti-gun politicians BEFORE they ever get to the national stage.

I have also donated to Gun Owners of America.

There are a whole lot of other good organizations out there fighting anti-gun legislation.

I LOVE IT, when all the gun banners and gun haters only focus on the NRA. They think that one organization is all there is, until they get bit in the ass by the other ones and are completely blind-sided.

Wha ??? Where did they come from....we were all in attacking the NRA. Who are all these other people???? :3oops:

 

[imyoda]

An educated guess based off of observable social effects and data.

In the end any effort to extrapolate data on a topic like defensive gun use that by nature is likely unreported more then half time using surveys and statistics from different places that compile data differently, is indeed much guesswork. But it's not invented out of thin air.

And that guesswork is far more relevant to this discussion then VPCs simple measurement of homicide numbers.
VPCs analysis does not prove the NRA wrong on anything as your thread title contends

An "educated guess" is a subjective guess ............ and not a fact based upon measurement......... And is mostly used by BSers and folks who have some ulterior motives ..........and not those using the scientific method......


BTW

Are you using MRA material which suggests what you posted as an argument.......to befuddle them liberals..............

as if copied word for word from NRA material..........

If that was from memory........Wow.......well done

 

[EMNofSeattle]

An "educated guess" is a subjective guess ............ and not a fact based upon measurement......... And is mostly used by BSers and folks who have some ulterior motives ..........and not those using the scientific method......


BTW

Are you using MRA material which suggests what you posted as an argument.......to befuddle them liberals..............

as if copied word for word from NRA material..........

If that was from memory........Wow.......well done

Really, find the NRA source I plagiarized, I already cited a source that you have not rebutted other then to call a guess

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

The study says that the chances it will happen to you makes the decision to have a gun more of a decision of a perceive event of fear.......

Rather than one intelligently based upon facts than emotions......

Of course the study in no way says/suggest a limit to freely decide what good for you.......

And it seems your reply is based on emotions rather than intellect......

YES, absolutely. You are 100% correct.

My decision to have a pistol on my nightstand is 100% based on me wanting it there, and it making me feel good and secure knowing it is there.

There is an old Viking saying,..." never be more than three steps away from your weapon". I like that saying, and therefore I have a weapon within easy reach of the three main places my buns are parked in my home.

I feel good knowing they are there, and yes, it is 100% emotional.

I will not dispute that one bit. I have also not even once had to pull a trigger on anyone in the USA. I hope I never do.

So, in a way, I fit the stats of that study perfectly.

I LIKE that feel of checkered grips in the palm of my hand.

I also have a shotgun (Remington 870) loaded with plastic balls and beanbags for anything needing a NON-lethal response.

 

[imyoda]

YES, absolutely. You are 100% correct.

My decision to have a pistol on my nightstand is 100% based on me wanting it there, and it making me feel good and secure knowing it is there.

There is an old Viking saying,..." never be more than three steps away from your weapon". I like that saying, and therefore I have a weapon within easy reach of the three main places my buns are parked in my home.

I feel good knowing they are there, and yes, it is 100% emotional.

I will not dispute that one bit. I have also not even once had to pull a trigger on anyone in the USA. I hope I never do.

So, in a way, I fit the stats of that study perfectly.

I LIKE that feel of checkered grips in the palm of my hand.

I also have a shotgun (Remington 870) loaded with plastic balls and beanbags for anything needing a NON-lethal response.

Your decision is your own base upon your evolution of need.....

Using what you see is appropriate to meet your needs.......


And I agree the feel of the weapon is rather reassuring (and sure does put a smile on my face........)


Now one can dispute how you wish to answer your need.........


Ever look down the other side of the barrel of a shotgun...........(.very memorable....IMHO )

 

[Crimefree]

Is The NRA Wrong? New Study Shows Guns Rarely Used For Self-Defense
Is The NRA Wrong? New Study Shows Guns Rarely Used for Self-Defense


Personal safety is one of the most-cited reasons to buy a gun. But a new study challenges the assumption that firearms are often used for self-defense.

The Violence Policy Center found that a very small proportion of firearm homicides can be attributed to so-called justifiable situations. Just one-gun death per every 32 criminal gun killings happened in self-defense scenarios in 2012, the most recent year for which data is available. And, while gun advocates argue that they want a firearm handy in their house in case of an intruder, just 0.1 percent of the justified attacks involved property crimes.

“The [National Rifle Association] has staked its entire agenda on the claim that guns are necessary for self-defense, but this gun industry propaganda has no basis in fact,” Josh Sugarmann, the executive director of VPC, which conducted the review, said in a statement. “Guns are far more likely to be used in a homicide than in a justifiable homicide by a private citizen. In fact, a gun is far more likely to be stolen than used in self-defense.”

Of the 8,601 total homicides recorded in 2012, just 259 of those deaths were the result of a self-defense scenario, according to the study. There were 13 states in which zero justifiable firearm deaths were logged that year. That no-deaths list included states with relatively strict gun control laws as well as states where firearms are more easily accessible. From New York and New Jersey, with tighter regulation, to Idaho and Montana, known for their love of hunting and opposition to gun control, firearms don’t appear to be used with any real frequency to save one’s self or family, according to the study.

“Purchasing a gun may help enrich the firearms industry, but the facts show it is unlikely to increase your personal safety,” Sugarmann said. “In fact, in a nation of more than 300 million firearms, it is striking how rarely guns are used in self-defense.” …………..


ALSO SEE:
Personal Safety Top Reason Americans Own Guns Today
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf
Self-Defense Gun Use is Rare, Study Finds | Violence Policy Center
Lobbying Spending Database - National Rifle Assn, 2015 | OpenSecrets
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000082&cycle=2014


Since a gun is seldom used "protecting "honey and home" and the cost of a gun.........some might consider installing deadbolt lock in the entry doors..........some what cheaper and more effective and certainly much safer........... than trying to shoot an intruder in the dark.........

Wouldn't you agree?

Always with lies it is the way of gun control. Cherry pick massage, fold and spindle and make conclusions not even in evidence.

It is beyond idiotic to claim all self-defence situations end in death. Give it a break and take this piece of gun control propaganda and shove it where it belongs.

Rule one. Gun control has no option but to LIE. All one has to do is look for the lie.

I would be ashamed to be associated with this cesspool dredged crap.

The conclusions reached are not possible from the data presented. A successful defence is not measured in dead bodies. That is shameless extension of what is not even indicated. Propaganda not a research paper.

This piece of rubbish is now in the garbage bin. RIP:violin

 

[jet57]

That finding is not correct. As has been mentioned. The absolute lowest credible numbers out DGUs as occurring 6 times as frequently as firearm homicides

Well, then its up to you prove that the OP is incorrect. I happen to believe it.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Well, then its up to you prove that the OP is incorrect. I happen to believe it.

The OP is not factually incorrect in the data, they are using it to present a faulty conclusion the data doesn't support

 

[Lursa]

Is The NRA Wrong? New Study Shows Guns Rarely Used for Self-Defense

???? How often do people use the fire extinguishers in their homes? Still highly recommended. When you need it, you need it.

Why do parents teach their kids about stranger danger? Not that many kids are really kidnapped.

Why do facilities have fire and earthquake drills? How often do they ever have fires or earthquakes?

Some people make intelligent, prudent decisions regarding the risks in life. Some dont. Most that dont get away with that, the luck of the odds. So then they feel justified in their condescension. Unless of course, the odds turn against them.

 

[MickeyW]

As much as I support gun rights that is just silly. You actually make your home a target by advertising guns, criminals lookng for valuable property to fence are likely to hit your house during the day wen the kids are at school and parents at work

It's just a spoof on anti-gun folks........e.g. it's a cartoon. Besides, my wife and I are retired and well armed, her dog will eat burglars, the alarm system is state of the art and the safes are too.

That is why people buy gun and ammo safes, oh and own dogs.

Yes! :thumbs:

60 - 400 thousand......Wow that5's a real spread ..............Can you cite where those "numbers came from?........

I saw them offered as "truth" from NRA material one can find easily on the web......

Were you aware of that?

I'm aware of many gun related incidents that have gone unreported. There are many communities in the western US, that rarely see any police and take care of matters on their own. The criminals are dealt with, no police reports and no media reports, generated.

I'm sure this is a foreign concept to you, but there are vast differences in ideology, across the USA.
Where the people in Mass., hide in their homes in fear of the Boston Bombers, westerners would be out on the front step, hoping for a shot at them.

For those in fear of the NRA, silly as that may be, at least many recognize their limitations, but still bitch and moan.

 

[MickeyW]

???? How often do people use the fire extinguishers in their homes? Still highly recommended. When you need it, you need it.

Why do parents teach their kids about stranger danger? Not that many kids are really kidnapped.

Why do facilities have fire and earthquake drills? How often do they ever have fires or earthquakes?

Some people make intelligent, prudent decisions regarding the risks in life. Some don't. Most that don't get away with that, the luck of the odds. So then they feel justified in their condescension. Unless of course, the odds turn against them.

There are so many clueless ninnies out there Lursa, afraid of their own shadow, who subscribe to Bad Living Magazine and will bash anything that scares them....
The NRA is their friend and they are too stupid to realize it!

btw...you forgot one example....why we all carry a spare tire and a jack in our vehicles.....even thou we may never need it.

But then......those same ninnies, don't know how to change a flat anyway.

 

[jet57]

The OP is not factually incorrect in the data, they are using it to present a faulty conclusion the data doesn't support

And that faulty conclusion uses suicides, is your claim?

 

[Fearandloathing]

NO.

Self-defense is not limited to active use against criminals.

Self-defense applies to any and all forms of threat. Not only criminal, but wild animals, foreign invasion, and government oppression.

Moreover, it includes deterrence. The fact that so many people are armed serves as a deterrent to criminal activity and government oppression.

It's a GOOD thing that so few people find themselves in a situation where they need to use a gun. It's a BETTER thing to have one in case you ever DO need it.

No. It is better to build a society that doesn't need guns.

I have seen this study before and it's right. I find it hilarious you invent "foreign invasion" as a reason to keep guns

 

[MickeyW]

No. It is better to build a society that doesn't need guns.

I have seen this study before and it's right. I find it hilarious you invent "foreign invasion" as a reason to keep guns

There can be any number of reasons for needing guns, foreign invasion is as good as any.

There is no such thing as building a society that doesn't need guns, because there is evil in the world everywhere you go. A defenseless society is a sheeple Utopian society....not grounded in realism.

 

[Crimefree]

No. It is better to build a society that doesn't need guns.

And how will one do that. Please explain.

I have seen this study before and it's right. I find it hilarious you invent "foreign invasion" as a reason to keep guns

Then you missed the 24 that say it is wrong. Why is that?

There are many reasons to be armed and the most important is the ability to defend oneself. There are many other not least of which is recreation but these are all immaterial. Why on earth would you deny anyone the right to own their own property? To do requires a very good reason and I have not seen one yet. All I see is the fear and hate mongers demanding other give up ther possessions because they do not like them. That is and will never be a reason to pander to peoples illogical fears and emotions.

 

[Crimefree]

Well, then its up to you prove that the OP is incorrect. I happen to believe it.

Did you miss the post above it?

Dead. Buried.

 

[RetiredUSN]

As much as I support gun rights that is just silly. You actually make your home a target by advertising guns, criminals lookng for valuable property to fence are likely to hit your house during the day wen the kids are at school and parents at work

According to you...right?

 

[iguanaman]

NO.

Self-defense is not limited to active use against criminals.

Self-defense applies to any and all forms of threat. Not only criminal, but wild animals, foreign invasion, and government oppression.

Moreover, it includes deterrence. The fact that so many people are armed serves as a deterrent to criminal activity and government oppression.

It's a GOOD thing that so few people find themselves in a situation where they need to use a gun. It's a BETTER thing to have one in case you ever DO need it.

But it is not so good that most people find that their only use for their gun is to shoot themselves. It is by far the most common "use" of a gun in the home.

 

[Lursa]

But it is not so good that most people find that their only use for their gun is to shoot themselves. It is by far the most common "use" of a gun in the home.

The rest of us should not be punished for that.

 

[Crimefree]

The OP is not factually incorrect in the data, they are using it to present a faulty conclusion the data doesn't support

Absolutely correct a successful defence does not mean a body is there to count. To suggest it is is only something a ideologically driven gun control stooge would do. Turn it into propaganda. The very source of this crap says the likelihood of honest research paper is less than zero.

Gun control advocates will not even read a paper written by a pro-gun organisation and dismiss it as tainted. This applies in spades to the fatally flawed crap they produce.

It should not even have been written on toilet paper it is so bad but all it is worth.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

And that faulty conclusion uses suicides, is your claim?

not exactly, It is a strict comparison of justifiable homicides versus criminal homicides, the statistics are strictly true, but their conclusion is that self defense with a firearm must be rare since only a small number of people are killed in an act of self defense with a firearm.

This is an argument that falls short, because when us pro-gun advocates argue for firearms as a tool of self defense, part of our argument is that firearms deter crime from occuring, or are used to terminate the commission of a crime, before it reaches the level of a homicide. Ergo, it is a mistake to conclude firearm self defense is rare based only on homicide statistics.

And remember, part of OP's thread is that his study "proves the NRA wrong" (although he doesn't cite any actual policy positions of the NRA) When the NRA regularly cites studies showing that the majority of defensive firearm uses do not involve firing a shot.

There have been many efforts to quantify the total number of defensive gun uses to include likely unreported uses in self defense that do not involve actually firing a gun. The lower end of these estimates as compiled by the NCSV is 65,000 per year, with some years of the survey showing over 100,000 uses. As I also cited earlier, Professor Tom Smith of Northwestern University School of law, applying adjustments based on knowledge of unreported crimes, adjusted the government data to average 216,000 likely defensive firearm uses per year. Some studies show well over 2 million per year (although I do not agree with those numbers as they seem absurdly high) But even anti-gun Harvard researcher David Hemenway accepts the 65,000 a year average.

Now remember, the VPC in their study claims gun control is needed to curb firearm homicides, which average 12,000 per year. So using the lowest end numbers on defensive uses, defensive firearm uses average AT LEAST 5 times greater frequency then the social ill that VPC wants to cure with firearm control.

That's my issue with the conclusion. the data VPC presents is true, but their conclusion does not follow the factors in the premise.

 

[jet57]

Did you miss the post above it?

Dead. Buried.

Nope. What's missing is your ability to prove the BS that Obama is anti second amendment and wants to take everybody's guns away. That little item has been missing form the bunch of you since this thread started.

Are you going to continue to lie and dance around it, or are going to prove what you say?