Do your own work and post it for the Board to assess.
You made a claim. You back it up.
That’s how it works around here.
Then it should be a GQ thread and moved there.
It is in GD and while here it allows for a more nuanced discussion.
The number of self-defense uses of guns only tells half the story and is deceptive by itself.
Maybe I’m missing something, but, from the linked article:
[my emphasis—DHMO]
Where does it state that the “assaults/homicides” were caused or performed by the resident or residents of the domicile? It only states "in or around a residence", which could include gang-related activity in a residential area, or a drug deal gone bad at a meth house in the suburbs, or any of a thousand situations which have nothing to do with whether the possession, display or use of a legally acquired, properly registered and safely-secured firearm is a net plus in protecting a person and his or her loved ones from violent injury or death.
As was mentioned above, the suicide statistics are suspect, in that, if someone is sufficiently motivated, the lack of a readily-available handgun is no deterrent.
If it is relevant to confine the study to how often a firearm was “used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting,” should it not also include the number of times merely possessing, displaying or informing the would-be assailant of the existence of a firearm prevented the completion of a crime?
Plus, whoever did the math shows a startling lack of rigor:
·Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense
·54 unintentional shootings
·118 attempted or completed suicides
·438 assaults/homicides
for a total of 623, not 626 cited in the article. (If they are counting the 3 instances in which law enforcement was involved as added to the total, the wording, “including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty” contradicts that.)
As well, how could the instances of LEO, “acting in the line of duty” have any relevance to the debate on homeowners’ possession of firearms for protection?
54/13 = 4.2 (OK)
118/13 = 9.1 (not 11, as claimed)
438/13 = 33.7 (nowhere near the seven claimed in the article.)
Given the squishy math, I challenge the rest of the figures cited, as well.
This whole link amounts to a non-sequitur, in that the “conclusion” does not follow from the premises.
There is a well-worn epigram, often (though incorrectly) attributed to Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain):
“Figures lie and liars figure.”
Another is:
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
Numbers can be made to jump through any hoops desired, depending on what point the speaker is trying to make. Like the anecdote common during the existence of the Soviet Union:
There was a one-on-one athletic competition between the US and the USSR. The US won. The Soviet newspapers, without mentioning the number of teams in the field, declared, “The USSR came in second, and the US finished next to last!”
Anecdotes are like assholes: everybody’s got one.
For me if I had had a gun when I was in a lonely place and attacked by two men, I would not have been the victim of a sexual assault which changed my entire life. There is zero probability any crime would have been committed on me if I had been armed. Maybe the two men attacking me would have been shot by me. Maybe one or both of them would have died. Given their intent I don’t really give a flying fuck.
This is sounding like a Lynyrd Skynyrd song.
I’ve worked in gun control threads for more than a decade to try and debunk this.
I’ll wager 99% of the eTigers on this board have never been in or witnessed first-hand an actual fight or beating by a gang, let alone been the victim of one. Real life is not where two chums get up and box with Marquess of Queensbury rules, shake hands and head to the pub. Teeth are lost. Bones break. Flesh is torn. Eyes are gouged. Joints pop. And lives are lost. Again, I blame Hollywood and an ignorant public for accepting as gospel the outrageous amounts of brutal punishment characters on TV and in the movies can take and then walk away from it. Any typical copudrama shows typical cops accepting beatings which would kill a dozen men in real life, and then showing up at work the next day with a Band-Aid over one eye. :dubious:
When my ex-SO was a doctor and worked the ER the results of two gentlemen sparring with each other were relayed to me on a daily basis. The guy who was punched once - once - in the head and suffered a blot clot which paralyzed his right side. The man with a kicked-in trachea. The woman with a rib broken in so far from one punch that she had pneumothorax. The girl beaten by a gang of girls who was now short 11 teeth. And the boy engaged in a simple schoolyard fight now sans one eye and plus 100+ stitches and a cast.
My point is not to claim or even imply that guns are not deadly and that if I were to attach you with a gun it would not be more fatal than with fist, club, or sword. That would be silly and ignorant. Think of what I’m saying - one shouldn’t contend that guns aren’t deadly weapons, just please don’t play down physical assault and its results. That’s all.
And in answer to your possibly rhetorical question, no, I will not accept the “bloody nose”, and I will pull out my gun. For the reasons above - once the first blow lands, you have little to no control over what is ultimately going to happen to you. Especially if you are a small, very light female. Maybe you get that bloody nose. Maybe a broken jaw. Ever had one? They’re frightfully easy to get, and they destroy your life. I still have daily pain from mine more than 25 years ex post facto. Maybe I curl up on the ground to avoid the blows and my neck is kicked and broken - my ex told me about a case like that, too. Maybe they beat me until senseless and rape me. Or maybe they just kill me.
If I am an innocent victim of a belligerent person or person(s) I am under no obligation to attempt to respond with exact or lesser force. Not moral, and in my State not legal either. And respond I will. I think most reasonable people would agree with that, but draw the line differently with respect to what constitutes a threat. Isn’t that real core of the debate, aside from firearms - that people could over-react to a potential threat that is not a real threat?
I see you level this at me and not at post #22.
Don’t look now but your bias is showing.
Liberals have been claiming for years that Lott was discredited, but I’ve never seen any convincing evidence of it. For instance, the next paragraph down from your link mentions Ayres & Donohue. But if you do a search on “rebuttal of Ayres & Donohue” you get a whole bunch of links. Here’s one that has links to further reading.
For every claim you can find claiming that Lott lied or did something unethical, you can find one claiming the very same thing about his opponents.
Alright, link
It’s 100% of the story on self defense, though. The topic seems to be “are guns effectively used for self defense, and how often” not “are guns safe in general.” I see them as two separate debates, not parts of the same debate.
I’ve witnessed many bar fights and I shudder to think what could happen if someone starts shooting in a crowded bar.
You detail many horrors that result from fights. I do not question any of it.
How many fights start and do not result in anything close to the horrors you describe? How many gun shot victims would your ex-SO be relating to you? Instead of a broken jaw maybe a shattered or blown off jaw instead is an improvement? Are we to assume all victims of beatings are the innocent one? Does it never happen that the attacker has the tables turned on him and gets the shit kicked out of him instead?
I have no doubt if I was being chased by a gang that wanted to beat me into a pulp or had some guy break into my house I would fervently be wishing I had a gun on me.
It remains though, from my earlier posted cite, having a gun is statistically more likely to cause a tragedy than prevent one.
So if I start a thread talking about how elephants in the garden are effective in scaring small animals away, it would be totally off-topic for another poster to bring up the fact that they tend to stomp the plants flat while doing so?
I sort of glossed over the bloody nose comment but Una is spot on there. We had a thread a long time ago where people said someone on TV who kept beating on someone after they had gone to the ground was a “pussy” because only a “pussy” would keep hitting someone who was down. I interjected with my own personal experiences–I’ve been in actual fights (I’m no bad ass, my life is nothing like the movie Roadhouse and I can count such instances on one hand, I do have the advantage of significant height and weight over 95% of men) and if someone went down and I was standing I was going to kick them again and again til they stopped trying to get up. There’s no such thing as honor or some sort of Bushido Code in street fight. The only time “bloody noses” ensue is if you have a bunch of people around to break up the fight, but sans that you better be ready to go all the way until the other guy quits moving.
My cousin (more like a nephew due to a 30 year age difference) didn’t know this, and at age 17 got in a fight (over a girl) in a parking lot. It was typical kid stuff, they had been arguing back and forth for weeks trash talking and finally agreed to a stereotypical “meet up” to “settle things.” There were tons of other kids present. My cousin knocked the guy down and backed off, assuming the fight was over. The kid who got knocked down decided he didn’t like being knocked down in front of all his friends so he came back up with a knife and stabbed my cousin. If not for the fact there were people there to immediately pick him up and drive him to an ER (which was less than 5 minutes away) he would have certainly died (probably bled to death) he nearly died as it was.
It’s fairly a separate issue from the gun topic, but yeah, characterizing fist fights as things that just end with a few scrapes a bloody nose and a few laughs is ignorant.
I dunno, I wouldn’t complain if I started such a thread and people responded that way. But the OP in this thread seemed pretty insistent this solely be about how effective and how frequently firearms are used for self-defense.
I actually addressed the statistics argument though, you can avoid being a statistics. Whack-a-Mole seems to feel (and if this isn’t his/her argument, I apologize for interpreting it this way) that you can’t “escape” those statistics. I posit proper gun ownership can remove virtually any chance of ending up in those statistics.
Proper handling and safety make a gun almost fool-proof, guns do not just malfunction and kill people and if you treat a gun correctly no misfire or malfunction should lead to death of anyone.
Proper storage and security should make it impossible for persons other than yourself to have access to your guns, so your kid shouldn’t be able to use it to kill himself.
If you have an SO and both of you have access to the gun safe, then they may use it to kill you in a domestic argument or something of that nature. That’s the one situation you can’t really mitigate through proper gun ownership. However most people that get killed by an SO had a lot of warning signs for a long time leading up to it, so I think in most cases even that is an avoidable outcome.
When I was in the Army I was very frequently in situations around heavy weaponry, training structures, machinery etc that was extremely dangerous. Accidents are a plague in the Army and result in lots of career ending or disfiguring injuries, even death. But I can’t think of a single accident in my career (over 20 years) in which the guy getting hurt didn’t do something stupid around whatever it was he hurt himself on. If you look at the statistics on injuries in the Army you might conclude that each individual has x % chance over a career of being in a serious accidental injury. I was never in one, because I always respected the situations I was in and the heavy machinery I would be around or etc. Behavior that you have control of can massively impact whether you become part of those statistics, so I don’t really find Whack-a-Mole’s argument very persuasive that “statistics don’t lie”, he’s basically acting as though you can’t do anything to reduce your personal chances of becoming part of those statistics, and that is false.
Please don’t falsely accuse me of bias in this forum.
It was not meant to be a confrontational statement and as such it was not meant to be the core of my argument. It was just meant to be an opening conversational line. Nonetheless, I apologize to you if my statement offended you.