Do Americans need weapons?

[bigrebnc1775]

The idea of the 2nd Amendment is to have weapons to create a militia if necessary and prevent the arbitrariness of the feds. It doesn't work, the feds are constantly getting stronger, and the Americans have already turned into obedient sheep of the left regime. The weapon has become a fetish. The left is not afraid of it.

It's not the Bill of Needs it's the Bill of Rights.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Where do you think the evil doers get their guns?

If you have a nation in which there are sufficient guns in circulation such that every man, woman and child could have one it means that there is a much higher probability that guns will be stolen or misplaced or otherwise get into the hands of people who want to do harm.

This is why the sheer number of guns in our society becomes a problem. MORE GUNS = higher probability of guns making it into the hands of those who wish to do harm.

As for people being able to defend themselves: well that's a noble ideal and certainly one that would be nice. But the fact of the matter is study after study after study shows that guns kept in the home are far more likely to be used against people in that same home (murders, suicides, etc.) and few guns are actually utilized in terms of "self defense"


From THIS SOURCE:
9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention. 2002; 8:236-238.



11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions

Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.

This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use. It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths.

Hemenway D, Solnick SJ. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011. Preventive Medicine. 2015; 79: 22-27.

Everything you wrote is a lie

 

[Failzero]

An Armed Society is a Polite society

 

[Open Bolt]

The way Americans act with it would indicate otherwise.

That is incorrect. There are no such indications.

Certainly the SCIENCE disagrees with you.

That is incorrect. Science backs me up 100%.

Oh, wah, wah, wah. You gun fetishists always scream and moan about your 2A rights as if ANYONE is really doing anything against you. LOL.

Your contempt for civil liberties is appalling.

If you guys are that scared all the time over nothing, imagine how many bodies you'll have to drop when something scary DOES happen.

Who said anything about being scared?

Well, I can understand that. Which is why the blather about the 2A is a joke because even YOU 2A fetishists understand that there are RATIONAL LIMITS.

Our civil liberties are not a joke.

You just like to have the NRA push it to the point that we are over the line.

We do no such thing. And neither does the NRA.

Oh so you don't know anything about guns? Well, let me inform you: guns are exceptionally efficient killing machines that can act a LONG DISTANCES. This is why mass shooters, drug gangs and "evil doers of all sorts" USE GUNS.

I know quite a bit about guns.

Nothing that you just said addresses the questions: So what? Who cares whether a murder victim is killed with a gun versus killed with some other sort of weapon?

That's truly psychopathic.

Spare me the melodrama.

Don't forget Supreme Court Justices. But I'm sure you think they don't know what they are talking about in relation to the Constitution either.
LOL.

No. But progressive justices do lie about it.

As for people being able to defend themselves: well that's a noble ideal and certainly one that would be nice. But the fact of the matter is study after study after study shows that guns kept in the home are far more likely to be used against people in that same home (murders, suicides, etc.)

That's nothing to do with guns.

That's because domestic violence is more common than home invasions.

Gun-free homes are equally more likely to experience domestic violence than experience a home invasion.

and few guns are actually utilized in terms of "self defense"

That is incorrect. Studies show quite a few cases of guns being used defensively.

From THIS SOURCE:
9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention. 2002; 8:236-238.

Most defensive gun uses do not involve gunfire.

Most criminals are looking for easy victims and will flee from a show of force.

11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions

Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.

This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use. It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths.

Hemenway D, Solnick SJ. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011. Preventive Medicine. 2015; 79: 22-27.

At least a half-million defensive gun uses a year is not what I would call rare. And many other studies show far more defensive gun uses than that.

Note that it really doesn't matter if self defense is effective or not. Free people have the right to have guns for self defense if they choose to do so. However, stats do show that it is effective.

 

[2aguy]

Where do you think the evil doers get their guns?

If you have a nation in which there are sufficient guns in circulation such that every man, woman and child could have one it means that there is a much higher probability that guns will be stolen or misplaced or otherwise get into the hands of people who want to do harm.

This is why the sheer number of guns in our society becomes a problem. MORE GUNS = higher probability of guns making it into the hands of those who wish to do harm.

As for people being able to defend themselves: well that's a noble ideal and certainly one that would be nice. But the fact of the matter is study after study after study shows that guns kept in the home are far more likely to be used against people in that same home (murders, suicides, etc.) and few guns are actually utilized in terms of "self defense"


From THIS SOURCE:
9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention. 2002; 8:236-238.



11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions

Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.

This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use. It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths.

Hemenway D, Solnick SJ. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011. Preventive Medicine. 2015; 79: 22-27.

You idiot….hememway is a left wing anti-gun fanatic……

What is it with you morons and not understanding that most self defense with a gun doesn’t end in the civilian having to shoot the criminal…….that is what Hemingway lies about to get morons like you to go along with him……you idiot

And as far as women and rape….for decades women were the group with the lowest rate of gun ownership…you moron…..so they didn’t have as many guns for the chance to stop rapes……..you uninformed doofus……..

And yet, I have news stories of women using guns to stop assholes attacking them….and they stopped the attack with their guns…..the guy didn’t get the chance to pull his pants down so likely it wasn’t called attempted rape….

Do you really think that a woman is better off during a violent sexual assault not having a gun? Really? Are you this stupid?

 

[2aguy]

Where do you think the evil doers get their guns?

If you have a nation in which there are sufficient guns in circulation such that every man, woman and child could have one it means that there is a much higher probability that guns will be stolen or misplaced or otherwise get into the hands of people who want to do harm.

This is why the sheer number of guns in our society becomes a problem. MORE GUNS = higher probability of guns making it into the hands of those who wish to do harm.

As for people being able to defend themselves: well that's a noble ideal and certainly one that would be nice. But the fact of the matter is study after study after study shows that guns kept in the home are far more likely to be used against people in that same home (murders, suicides, etc.) and few guns are actually utilized in terms of "self defense"


From THIS SOURCE:
9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention. 2002; 8:236-238.



11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions

Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.

This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use. It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths.

Hemenway D, Solnick SJ. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011. Preventive Medicine. 2015; 79: 22-27.

You moron..........do you think these count?



http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016...-gun-violence-awareness-day.html?intcmp=hpbt4
Lancaster Woman Scares Off Bat-Wielding Attackers By Pulling Gun On Them

LANCASTER, Ohio - It happened along a walking path in Lancaster.

Dinah Burns is licensed to carry a concealed gun, but she'd only recently started taking her weapon while walking her dog.

Based on what happened, it looks like she'll make a point of carrying from now on.

"I think if they'd gotten any closer, I probably would have fired,” said Burns.

It was Monday when Burns was on a footpath near Sanderson Elementary School.

"Two gentlemen came out of the woods, one holding a baseball bat, and said 'You're coming with us'."

The men weren't deterred by Dinah's dog Gracie.

"I said, 'Well, what do you want?,' and as I was saying that I reached in to my pocket and slipped my gun out, slipped the safety off as I pulled it out. As I was doing that the other gentleman came toward me and raised the baseball bat. And, I pointed the gun at them and said, 'I have this and I'm not afraid to use it.'"

The men took off and so far have eluded police. Dinah posted about the incident on Facebook to alert friends and neighbors, to criticism by some.

"Most of the males' opinion was, 'Why didn't you shoot them?'"

Easy to second-guess a decision made under pressure, based on her concealed carry training, and police agree.

"To get out of a situation, back out, get out of it as much as you can without having to discharge your firearm."

"I will say it's a good thing to go from a place of danger to a place of safety, however you get that done,” said Sgt. Matt Chambers, Lancaster Police.

"Very thankful that it turned out the way it did, and hope it doesn't happen again, but I will be prepared."
========
What I want you to know on Gun Violence Awareness Day | Fox News

What I want you to know on Gun Violence Awareness Day

I correctly listened to my instincts; I had a feeling that my life was in danger in that elevator and prepared myself mentally for what was potentially to come.

I ran to my car in an attempt to escape and, before I could even get my entire body in my car, I was tackled by my attacker.

This man quickly overpowered me, stabbed at me with a knife, clamped his hand over my mouth multiple times, and repeatedly tried forcing me in the passenger seat of my car while telling me, “We’re going.”

The entire time this was happening, a rusted, serrated knife was being stabbed towards my abdomen and held at my face.

I had been hit in the face, thrown over my driver’s side console, and had rips in my tights from his hands trying to force my legs up and over into the passenger seat.

There are some individuals that think gun owners are “trigger happy” and wanting to pull their weapons out at the first opportunity. There is nothing further from the truth.

The night I was attacked, I fought like hell for my life before reaching for my gun. I kicked, I screamed, I had all ten fingernails ripped off and bloodied from scratching and trying to fight my way out of a literal life and death situation.

Ultimately, I accessed my gun, shot my attacker multiple times, and saved my life. He will be spending years in prison for what he did to me.

Using a gun in self-protection is not a decision one makes lightly; in fact, I never dreamed that I would be forced into a situation where I would have to do so. However, I also never imagined such evil existing in the world so that I would be powerless, wounded, on my back and unable to physically force my attacker off of me.

I owned a gun and had been trained on how to use it. I know how to safely carry and that a gun is a serious and significant weapon; it is not to be used carelessly. Naysayers and people with opposing opinions may try to undermine my situation with hypotheticals. I cannot answer these questions. All I can do is tell the facts of my story and the true account of how I saved my own life.

What I want you to know on Gun Awareness Day is that a gun in the hands of a potential victim is not improperly placed; it can be the only thing keeping her from being brutally raped and murdered.

Without my gun, I would not be alive today.


Guns are not the problem in America; men like my attacker -- who are willing to violently change one person’s life for no reason except for pure evil – are the problem.

Be safe at all times. Be aware of your surroundings. Trust your instincts. Always be able to protect yourself. Refuse to be a victim, and instead be a fighter and a survivor. Live to tell your tale and make a criminal regret the day he chose you as a “soft target.” My gun saved my life, and one could save yours too.
===============

Waking up to an armed intruder in your house would be any home owner’s worst nightmare. If you’re a single mother with two young kids in the house, finding a man wielding a machete in your bedroom closet immediately kicks you into “momma bear” mode.

That’s what happened to a California woman who woke up to the sound of a man rummaging through her walk-in closet. The thief — Ocean Burger (his name, not a restaurant) — was armed with a number of knives and a machete when the un-named woman grabbed a handgun and confronted him.

From ksbw.com . . .


[Investigators] say Burger ignored orders to leave and when the homeowner fired several warning shots he allegedly advanced towards her, that’s when the mother fired at the accused burglar hitting him in the leg. And California law may be on her side.

Warning shots are never a good idea and could even put you in legal jeopardy in many jurisdictions. In this case, they not only wasted perfectly good (and expensive) ammunition, but probably led Burger to believe she wasn’t serious about actually shooting him.

After advancing on the woman, the round in his leg apparently convinced Burger that he was wrong.

The good news is California actually has a castle doctrine law on the books. The woman had no duty to retreat and was legally justified in using deadly force to defend herself and her children.

“There is a presumption that favors the homeowner they’re presumed that the person is in imminent fear of either death or great bodily injury,” said Ellen Campos, assistant district attorney for San Benito county. …

California Woman Shoots Machete-Wielding Burglar She Found in Her Closet - The Truth About Guns
=============

 

[2aguy]

Where do you think the evil doers get their guns?

If you have a nation in which there are sufficient guns in circulation such that every man, woman and child could have one it means that there is a much higher probability that guns will be stolen or misplaced or otherwise get into the hands of people who want to do harm.

This is why the sheer number of guns in our society becomes a problem. MORE GUNS = higher probability of guns making it into the hands of those who wish to do harm.

As for people being able to defend themselves: well that's a noble ideal and certainly one that would be nice. But the fact of the matter is study after study after study shows that guns kept in the home are far more likely to be used against people in that same home (murders, suicides, etc.) and few guns are actually utilized in terms of "self defense"


From THIS SOURCE:
9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention. 2002; 8:236-238.



11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions

Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.

This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use. It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths.

Hemenway D, Solnick SJ. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011. Preventive Medicine. 2015; 79: 22-27.

You idiot....

And here we have studies that show that guns are the most effective way to stop a rape.....

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape

A woman using a gun is less likely to be raped and less likely to be injured during the attack....

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape


However, most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.

I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance. This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.

First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.

Second, 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).

Third, a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.


Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes,"Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion." (Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished "without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."

The best conclusion from available scientific data, then, is when avoidance of rape has failed and one must choose between being raped and resisting, a woman's best option is to resist with a gun in her hands.

The only reason Hemmingway uses the Natiional Crime Victimization Survey is it is the only survey that doesn't actually research gun self defense....you idiot..........that should tell you all you need to know about his "research," on this topic, and it should explain that he is an anti-gun fanatic pretending to do research...

 

[2aguy]

Where do you think the evil doers get their guns?

If you have a nation in which there are sufficient guns in circulation such that every man, woman and child could have one it means that there is a much higher probability that guns will be stolen or misplaced or otherwise get into the hands of people who want to do harm.

This is why the sheer number of guns in our society becomes a problem. MORE GUNS = higher probability of guns making it into the hands of those who wish to do harm.

As for people being able to defend themselves: well that's a noble ideal and certainly one that would be nice. But the fact of the matter is study after study after study shows that guns kept in the home are far more likely to be used against people in that same home (murders, suicides, etc.) and few guns are actually utilized in terms of "self defense"


From THIS SOURCE:
9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention. 2002; 8:236-238.



11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions

Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.

This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use. It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths.

Hemenway D, Solnick SJ. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011. Preventive Medicine. 2015; 79: 22-27.

Look doofus....do you know why Hemenway uses the National Crime Victimization Survey?

It is the only crime study that he says counts gun defensive use...that doesn't have the word "Gun" in it.....it does not ask respondents if they have used a gun for self defense, you moron.......

Here.......from the Daily Kos no less....

The Daily Kos on why the NCVS is wrong...

Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study

The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;

2) the study does not track every type of crime;

3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;

4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;

5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;

6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.

 

[2aguy]

Where do you think the evil doers get their guns?

If you have a nation in which there are sufficient guns in circulation such that every man, woman and child could have one it means that there is a much higher probability that guns will be stolen or misplaced or otherwise get into the hands of people who want to do harm.

This is why the sheer number of guns in our society becomes a problem. MORE GUNS = higher probability of guns making it into the hands of those who wish to do harm.

As for people being able to defend themselves: well that's a noble ideal and certainly one that would be nice. But the fact of the matter is study after study after study shows that guns kept in the home are far more likely to be used against people in that same home (murders, suicides, etc.) and few guns are actually utilized in terms of "self defense"


From THIS SOURCE:
9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention. 2002; 8:236-238.



11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions

Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.

This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use. It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths.

Hemenway D, Solnick SJ. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011. Preventive Medicine. 2015; 79: 22-27.

Hey.....moron.....the 18 gun self defense studies that hemenway chooses to ignore....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

2021 national firearms survey..

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.

 

[2aguy]

Where do you think the evil doers get their guns?

If you have a nation in which there are sufficient guns in circulation such that every man, woman and child could have one it means that there is a much higher probability that guns will be stolen or misplaced or otherwise get into the hands of people who want to do harm.

This is why the sheer number of guns in our society becomes a problem. MORE GUNS = higher probability of guns making it into the hands of those who wish to do harm.

As for people being able to defend themselves: well that's a noble ideal and certainly one that would be nice. But the fact of the matter is study after study after study shows that guns kept in the home are far more likely to be used against people in that same home (murders, suicides, etc.) and few guns are actually utilized in terms of "self defense"


From THIS SOURCE:
9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention. 2002; 8:236-238.



11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions

Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.

This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use. It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths.

Hemenway D, Solnick SJ. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011. Preventive Medicine. 2015; 79: 22-27.

Here....Hemmenway said

Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action.

From the Southwick, actual study on gun self defense.....you doofus...

The next step was to look at the serious injuries which occurred. Victims received more injuries if they took some other action than if they used a gun or did nothing. Their attackers caused the lowest rate of injury if they did not use a weapon but caused the highest rate of injury if they used a weapon other than a gun. Thus, it followed that the best choice for the victim is to use a gun and for the money-motivated attacker is either to use a gun or to use no weapon.
------

The final step in the analysis was to look at what the results in terms of both losses and injuries would have been in both data sets if more of the victims had been armed. It was found that potential victims who choose to carry guns provide an external benefit to the class of potential victims.

They reduce the prob- ability that the attacker will get anything from a particular crime and therefore reduce the attractive- ness of that crime to the criminal. Further, they reduce the amount of gain that can be expected from that crime. Since there are costs to the potential victim in carrying a gun, it follows that too few guns will be carried for a social optimum.

https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/2000-Self-Defense-with-Guns-The-Consequences.pdf

 

[koshergrl]

Where do you think the evil doers get their guns?

If you have a nation in which there are sufficient guns in circulation such that every man, woman and child could have one it means that there is a much higher probability that guns will be stolen or misplaced or otherwise get into the hands of people who want to do harm.

This is why the sheer number of guns in our society becomes a problem. MORE GUNS = higher probability of guns making it into the hands of those who wish to do harm.

As for people being able to defend themselves: well that's a noble ideal and certainly one that would be nice. But the fact of the matter is study after study after study shows that guns kept in the home are far more likely to be used against people in that same home (murders, suicides, etc.) and few guns are actually utilized in terms of "self defense"


From THIS SOURCE:
9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention. 2002; 8:236-238.



11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions

Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.

This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use. It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths.

Hemenway D, Solnick SJ. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011. Preventive Medicine. 2015; 79: 22-27.

We aren’t giving up our guns just because our justice system refuses to leave criminals in prison where they belong. It will NEVER happen.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

We aren’t giving up our guns just because our justice system refuses to leave criminals in prison where they belong. It will NEVER happen.

Then you missed the point of my post. I will try to make it clearer for you.

This is a probabilistic game. If you increase the number of legal guns owned by perfectly good people you increase the probability that there will be guns that are stolen or otherwise make it into the hands of the bad people.

That's just basic statistics. Thefts happen, even good people sell guns to people who may not be as good.


In reality no one is going to ask you to give up all your guns (except maybe Jesus, but you'd have to take that up with Him), but you may be asked to either have limited guns or have more oversight of you guns for the general public safety.

Cookies are good, but you can't make your entire diet cookies. Guns have a value but you can't flood your population with guns and expect the outcome to be great.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Hey.....moron.....

There's a bridge somewhere missing you.

 

[Open Bolt]

you may be asked to either have limited guns or have more oversight of you guns for the general public safety.

It's hard to give a specific answer without knowing the details of the limits or the oversight, but the answer to such requests will likely be "no".

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

It's hard to give a specific answer without knowing the details of the limits or the oversight, but the answer to such requests will likely be "no".

Actually it is NEVER hard to answer that question. The answer is always "no" regardless.

In all reality America is stuck with its gun issues. The 2A rules supreme and that's the way we want it. We watch week after week as mass-shootings happen and people get on subway cars and open fire. And we clutch our pearls for a few minutes and we mouth the mealy-mouth fake compassion of "thotz-n-prayerz".

We watched as little kids were mowed down in Connecticut and we hmmed and hawwed for a few months, but in the end we didn't do anything meaningful.

We actually seem to LIKE this state of affairs.

So we're always going to be like this. The cost of "freedom" in the world's richest nation is a simple cost, the cost of knowing that if you go to the store or church or theater today you might not make it back alive.

You guys won. Enjoy the victory! Don't rub it in by playing "martyr" over imaginary gun limitations. You don't need to worry. You have it all. You won fair and square (thanks to NRA money which you gave them, Wayne L.P. would like to thank you a LOT).

 

[Open Bolt]

Actually it is NEVER hard to answer that question. The answer is always "no" regardless.

Not necessarily. I'd like to see a system set up where suicidal people could voluntarily and temporarily hand in their guns for safekeeping until they are better.

In all reality America is stuck with its gun issues. The 2A rules supreme and that's the way we want it. We watch week after week as mass-shootings happen and people get on subway cars and open fire.

Those people would be just as dead if they were killed with a bomb, or with fire, or with a truck driven at high speed.

And we clutch our pearls for a few minutes and we mouth the mealy-mouth fake compassion of "thotz-n-prayerz".

My thoughts and prayers stopped when these people started using their victimhood as a weapon to try to violate my rights.

We watched as little kids were mowed down in Connecticut and we hmmed and hawwed for a few months, but in the end we didn't do anything meaningful.
We actually seem to LIKE this state of affairs.

It's more that there really isn't much that we can do to prevent murderers from murdering.

So we're always going to be like this. The cost of "freedom" in the world's richest nation is a simple cost, the cost of knowing that if you go to the store or church or theater today you might not make it back alive.

It would be just the same if we were not free. The weapons would be different, but the deaths would be the same.

You guys won. Enjoy the victory! Don't rub it in by playing "martyr" over imaginary gun limitations.

When the left tries to violate my rights, the attempt may be doomed to fail, but the attempt isn't imaginary.

You don't need to worry. You have it all. You won fair and square (thanks to NRA money which you gave them, Wayne L.P. would like to thank you a LOT).

It's not money that won it for us. It's votes. Rural voters always vote anti-gun politicians out of office, and both parties need rural districts in order to hold the House of Representatives.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Not necessarily. I'd like to see a system set up where suicidal people could voluntarily and temporarily hand in their guns for safekeeping until they are better.

They can already do it.

Those people would be just as dead if they were killed with a bomb, or with fire, or with a truck driven at high speed.

Good thing we limit people's access to bombs.

My thoughts and prayers stopped when these people started using their victimhood as a weapon to try to violate my rights.

Yeah, people with dead children tend to be a real drag. Your compassion is noted. Maybe someday you'll be lucky enough to be in their shoes and you can show them how it SHOULD be done.

When the left tries to violate my rights, the attempt may be doomed to fail, but the attempt isn't imaginary.

It's imaginary. No one is going to take your precious guns. You won. Stop being a sore winner.

It's not money that won it for us.

Ummm, you know how lobbying works, right?

It's votes.

Uh huh.

Is that why the NRA spends MILLIONS OF DOLLARS every year lobbying congress?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The idea of the 2nd Amendment is to have weapons to create a militia if necessary and prevent the arbitrariness of the feds. It doesn't work, the feds are constantly getting stronger, and the Americans have already turned into obedient sheep of the left regime. The weapon has become a fetish. The left is not afraid of it.

Oh, of course they're not afraid of it. That's why they spend so much time trying to eradicate the Second Amendment and private gun ownership: because everyone knows you obsess over defeating things you're not afraid of.

 

[Cecilie1200]

RIP over 30,000 people who die by guns in USA every year.

Weapons are of little use except murder and suicide.

Long life and happiness to the 2 million+ people whose lives are saved by guns every year. Seems like they found quite an important use for weapons "except murder and suicide".

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Oh, of course they're not afraid of it. That's why they spend so much time trying to eradicate the Second Amendment and private gun ownership

You gun fetishists are the loudest whiners imaginable. Worse that toddlers who didn't get as many sprinkles on their ice cream as they wanted.

YOU WON! You have as many guns as you want! You guys have turned America into the leading first world gun ownership capital!

STOP BEING SORE WINNERS!

: because everyone knows you obsess over defeating things you're not afraid of.

You guys are the MOST PITIFUL martyrs I've seen. And my mom was a world-class martyr, so I've seen the master at work. You guys STILL WIN THE TITLE.