Why were these town chosen? Are these the towns that proved the possibly predetermined conclusion? just askin’
If you have a cite or study to that affect, feel free to post it. Otherwise just askin’ is just predetermined opinion.
Here’s another stat related to the question at hand:
“Based on a review of the available scientific data, Dr. Lippmann and co-authors conclude that the dangers of having a gun at home far outweigh the safety benefits. Research shows that access to guns greatly increases the risk of death and firearm-related violence. A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder.”
And how many incidents where the gun was never fired per incident where it was?
My personal experience is 6-0.
Basing it only on the times the gun was fired is deeply flawed and misleading. But I guess that’s the point.
After my mother died my dad lived alone. One night he heard a strange noise from the back bedroom. He opened the door, flipped on the light and saw a guy climbing in the window. Thinking quickly as the guy continued to try and climb in (small window), my dad said “wait right there while I go get my gun.”
Guy reversed directions and left.
The kicker is my dad didn’t own a gun, but the announcement was enough to scare the ad guy off.
GQ is about answering questions factually. Not opinion and anecdotes. The OP asked for studies and stats on use of guns in defense (home or personal). I supplied them with a the only reputable study I could find. Feel free to post a study backing up your beliefs.
My personal experience is 0-0, what does that prove?
It would be interesting to see reliable statistics on defensive gun uses, but going on personal anecdotes isn’t interesting or useful. Going by your experience, replicas are all anybody needs for personal defense. Rick’s bad guy may have been scared off by realizing people are at home, not mention of a gun. Cheshire Human’s prowler may have been a deer-- people do make that mistake from time to time. Hence, I suspect, the wildly divergent estimates. When stats are all over the map, they’re useless.
A “predetermined opinion” of what? I’m asking a question. I would like to know if these towns were randomly selected or were chosen because they matched a predetermined conclusion?
I’m curious as to the relevance of any such statistics. Murder, rape, and aggravated assault are committed in the US. Firearms are hands down the most effective means of halting an aggressor. An armed police officer is not present at the scene of at least a nonzero subset of these crimes. If we accept that a person has the right to pursue defense against such crimes to the best of their ability legal access to firearms logically follows.
I’m not trying to open a debate about firearms. Really. It just seems that no statistic has bearing on whether firearms are needed for self defense.
Not unless deer rattle doorknobs and try to open windows. The sound of that is what got me to go out with the shotgun.
For starters, statistics are one of the best decision making aids available. They’re collected facts. I’ve noticed that both sides in the gun control debate are badly informed. Statements by some who favor gun control are frequently ridiculed by those opposed for unfamiliarity with guns and how they work. Statements by gun rights proponents sometimes display little knowledge of the history of gun laws in the US, the effect of gun control on crime, and the effectiveness of guns in self-protection.
For example, you state that guns are “hands down” the best way to protect oneself when confronted with violent crime. That is not necessarily true. A University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine study of Philadelphia residents led to the estimate that a person with a gun is 4.5 times more likely to be shot during an assault than a person without a gun.
It seems to me that you’ve reached a conclusion and are unwilling to be swayed by statistical evidence that does not support your conclusion. That’s fine if we’re talking about TV shows. Public policy decisions should look at evidence. So should those considering a potentially fatal decision like whether or not to purchase a firearm.
Cheshire Human, yes, yes, I’m sure it was a person, so far as I can be sure it happened at all. But you are aware that people do make mistakes and this fact has some bearing on what types of evidence are best for understanding the effects of firearms, right?
I’m from a country without a ‘gun culture’, and in fact where laws were enacted that make owning any kind of firearm very difficult. I live in the third largest city in Australia, and I can’t think of anywhere I would take a firearm, if I could, for personal defence.
Given that, I don’t really have an appreciation for the whole ‘I need a gun for self defence’ argument. I’m analytical by nature, so was hoping there’d be some stats I could use to formulate an opinion.
Your opinion, from your question, appears to be the assumption that they picked the cities to support a predetermined conclusion. If you had read the study, you would not have to ask.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199611073351906#t=articleBackground
Thanks for playing Jr. Moderator there, son. Way to claim TRUTH while ignoring that I popped your balloon.
Does it include criminals who made the mistake of assaulting an armed “victim”, because as you worded it, the person with a gun who got “shot during an assault” could just as well be the perpetrator as the intended victim.
Does that number include or exclude criminal-on-criminal assaults?..drug deals gone bad and the like? Did they hear both sides of the story, or better from a neutral investigation, or just take the word of the person who ended up shot claiming to be the victim of an assault?
And since it was a School of Medicine study, did they sample beyond people who showed up seeking treatment? Cause that alone would be some selection bias right there.
I worded it the way that I did so that it would be easy for anybody to google for themself. My point is that it is not necessarily so, as asserted by JLRogers as a fact without evidence, that guns are the best means of dealing with an aggressor. If you want to know the details of the study, why don’t you go find out?
There’s a lot of just askin’ going on.