STUDY: Using Guns for Defense Leads to Fewer Injuries
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
![]() |
![]() http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/25/study-using-guns-for... Citing four separate studies between 1988-2004, the assessment from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council says crime victims who use guns in self-defense have consistently lower injury rates than victims who use other strategies to protect themselves (other strategies include stalling, calling the police or using weapons such as knives or baseball bats). |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() Along the same lines. So much for "more guns, more crime" theory. As with every other study about this topic at very worst there is no correlation between firearms and crime. In this case and in the case of the whole country for something like 20 years every year is a new record of firearms set and we're back at 1960s crime rates. California gun sales jump; gun injuries, deaths fall http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/27/5079151/california-gun-sales-incre... |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Here's a link to a 60 page white paper on defensive use of guns: http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/tough-targets-when-criminals-face-armed-resistance-citizens The last 40 pages is an appendix of detailed incidents of defensive gun use between 2003-2011. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() CDC has come back with a study that was directed by President Obama. CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not http://www.guns.com/2013/06/27/cdc-releases-study-on-gun-violence-w... |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Originally posted by DanielG CDC has come back with a study that was directed by President Obama. CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not http://www.guns.com/2013/06/27/cdc-releases-study-on-gun-violence-w... I bet you won't see Vice President Biden or Senator Feinstein waiving that report around. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() Originally posted by Hook'em Originally posted by DanielG CDC has come back with a study that was directed by President Obama. CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not http://www.guns.com/2013/06/27/cdc-releases-study-on-gun-violence-w... I bet you won't see Vice President Biden or Senator Feinstein waiving that report around. I'm waiting to see it, and all the conclusions, on the Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times, etc. They should be publishing it on the front pages any minute now. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by DanielG http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/25/study-using-guns-for... Citing four separate studies between 1988-2004, the assessment from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council says crime victims who use guns in self-defense have consistently lower injury rates than victims who use other strategies to protect themselves (other strategies include stalling, calling the police or using weapons such as knives or baseball bats). So the studies concluded that a weapon that is capable of deadly force from a distance is more effective for self-defense than using a weapon that must be used hand-to-hand or using no weapon at all? Wow. Mind officially blown. Glad I was sitting down for that. ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by DanielG http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/25/study-using-guns-for... Citing four separate studies between 1988-2004, the assessment from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council says crime victims who use guns in self-defense have consistently lower injury rates than victims who use other strategies to protect themselves (other strategies include stalling, calling the police or using weapons such as knives or baseball bats). So the studies concluded that a weapon that is capable of deadly force from a distance is more effective for self-defense than using a weapon that must be used hand-to-hand or using no weapon at all? Wow. Mind officially blown. Glad I was sitting down for that. ![]() You've obviously not been listening to all the "you have a better chance of getting hurt if you have a gun" arguments by the anti-carry people. At least not hearing them. They've most certainly been saying it. |
![]() ![]() |
Sensei ![]() | ![]() Unfortunately, this study may or may not disprove that. Problem with studies and statistics, they usually focus on only parts of a much larger/complex issue but they get applied to a broader base. Well, I guess that's not the problem of studies themselves, but the society that interprets them. Per the reference in the original post, this study focused on using a gun by crime victims for defense which resulted in fewer injuries than other methods. I wouldn't disagree with that. But that's ONLY what was stated. Did it address any injuries outside of defense in a crime? Accidents, etc? How about gun used in committing a crime? It only mentioned in defense of one. In short, this study disproved the "better chance of getting hurt if you have a gun" in defense of crime, but nothing else. Technically, your chance of getting hurt could still be better in a different case study. For example, someone would have zero chance to accidentally shoot themselves or someone else if they don't own one The chances have improved infinitely with ownership. Odds still may be remote, but there IS a better chance. The gun control side may argue that the chances an injury due to an accidental discharge may increase significantly with ownership, which overshadows the safety it could provide IF you are a victim of a crime. I think studies can be very enlightening, but one must be careful on what they actually look at and to what the the results can be applied to. I think it's prudent to be aware of what they studied and the sample size, etc, and be a little diligent on making assumptions based on the results and apply them to groups outside the scope of the study. There are so many facets to the gun ownership issue, that it may be impossible for any study to completely encompass all of them. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() Originally posted by Kido Per the reference in the original post, this study focused on using a gun by crime victims for defense which resulted in fewer injuries than other methods. I wouldn't disagree with that. But that's ONLY what was stated. That's all they were studying. That's all they meant to study. You can widen any study to any level and still people will complain it wasn't wide enough, so they kept it to the "Is it more harmful or helpful to use a gun as a defensive item during an attack" That anyone would complain that a study with those parameters wasn't looking outside those parameters is just weird. The one I find interesting is people who have issues with the Bureau of Justice Statistics comments and claim the stat must be an NRA lackey. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft April 1994, NCJ-147003 *A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon. Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims' injury outcomes. Edited by DanielG 2013-06-28 1:20 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Sensei ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by Kido Per the reference in the original post, this study focused on using a gun by crime victims for defense which resulted in fewer injuries than other methods. I wouldn't disagree with that. But that's ONLY what was stated. That's all they were studying. That's all they meant to study. You can widen any study to any level and still people will complain it wasn't wide enough, so they kept it to the "Is it more harmful or helpful to use a gun as a defensive item during an attack" That anyone would complain that a study with those parameters wasn't looking outside those parameters is just weird. We agree then. Unfortunately, I see it far too often that interest groups like to spin stats and studies to support their case and apply it to groups outside the parameters of the studies they reference. Not good science. But they are using it for politics, not science - so I guess it shouldn't be a surprise. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Kido Unfortunately, this study may or may not disprove that. Problem with studies and statistics, they usually focus on only parts of a much larger/complex issue but they get applied to a broader base. Well, I guess that's not the problem of studies themselves, but the society that interprets them. Per the reference in the original post, this study focused on using a gun by crime victims for defense which resulted in fewer injuries than other methods. I wouldn't disagree with that. But that's ONLY what was stated. Did it address any injuries outside of defense in a crime? Accidents, etc? How about gun used in committing a crime? It only mentioned in defense of one. In short, this study disproved the "better chance of getting hurt if you have a gun" in defense of crime, but nothing else. Technically, your chance of getting hurt could still be better in a different case study. For example, someone would have zero chance to accidentally shoot themselves or someone else if they don't own one The chances have improved infinitely with ownership. Odds still may be remote, but there IS a better chance. The gun control side may argue that the chances an injury due to an accidental discharge may increase significantly with ownership, which overshadows the safety it could provide IF you are a victim of a crime. I think studies can be very enlightening, but one must be careful on what they actually look at and to what the the results can be applied to. I think it's prudent to be aware of what they studied and the sample size, etc, and be a little diligent on making assumptions based on the results and apply them to groups outside the scope of the study. There are so many facets to the gun ownership issue, that it may be impossible for any study to completely encompass all of them. I don't get it, because the study by the CDC did discuss most of that. That deaths due to accidents are less than one percent and have steadily declined for decades. It studied violent crimes and showed that 70% of guns come from sales and only a small percent are stolen. That self defense use equaled or was greater than criminal use depending on estimates. Not really an argument, I just don't get what it is you are saying that it one discussed one narrow point. |
![]() ![]() |
Sensei ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by powerman I don't get it, because the study by the CDC did discuss most of that. That deaths due to accidents are less than one percent and have steadily declined for decades. It studied violent crimes and showed that 70% of guns come from sales and only a small percent are stolen. That self defense use equaled or was greater than criminal use depending on estimates. Not really an argument, I just don't get what it is you are saying that it one discussed one narrow point. The only point I was trying to make is the original link discussed was the decrease of injuries due to the use of a gun for defense in crimes. That's interesting and compelling. I was simply making the observation and perhaps a caution to not take the results and extrapolate beyond that - I didn't accuse anyone of doing that, and maybe no one here needs that caution and I'm preaching to the choir. I have my views and they are what they are and I won't bring them up, but I was simply trying to add to the conversation. I'm not debating anyone in this thread. I intended to comment more on the phenomena of special interest groups taking stats/studies and saying they are definitive in some way for their crusade rather than conceding/admitting/caveat they apply only to what was studied. Perhaps using this as a possible example. I constantly hear from people on many sides of MANY arguments that say "There was a study that determined this/that, so therefore it's true across the board and I'm right". If you look at the studies they reference, more often or not, it has a more narrow scope than what's proclaimed. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Ya, the second link the Daniel posted about the CDC study was a good read. And it really did not tell me what I already didn't know. If you just look at CDC data for deaths, they already show the numbers of accidental deaths and the FBI stats show the number of "assault" rifles and mass shooting compared to the rest of the gun crime being very very low. I did understand the point you were making about stats in general and people using them out of context. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by DanielG http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/25/study-using-guns-for... Citing four separate studies between 1988-2004, the assessment from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council says crime victims who use guns in self-defense have consistently lower injury rates than victims who use other strategies to protect themselves (other strategies include stalling, calling the police or using weapons such as knives or baseball bats). So the studies concluded that a weapon that is capable of deadly force from a distance is more effective for self-defense than using a weapon that must be used hand-to-hand or using no weapon at all? Wow. Mind officially blown. Glad I was sitting down for that. ![]() You've obviously not been listening to all the "you have a better chance of getting hurt if you have a gun" arguments by the anti-carry people. At least not hearing them. They've most certainly been saying it. I've heard those arguements, but they sound intuitively wrong to me. Obviously, if I'm attacked, it stands to reason that I have a greater chance of not being hurt if I have a gun to defend myself. I don't need some survey to tell me that. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I've heard those arguements, but they sound intuitively wrong to me. Obviously, if I'm attacked, it stands to reason that I have a greater chance of not being hurt if I have a gun to defend myself. I don't need some survey to tell me that. Well, a Senator right here in Colorado told a rape victim she would more than likely get shot herself if she had a gun when the victim spoke against not allowing CC on college campuses. It sort of made the news. When trying to find the source for the Senators remarks, the study... you can't find it, but I did find this... http://evil-klown.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-colorado-coalition-against-gun.html I do not know why I can't post text... it's acting weird... but the stats are suspect to what she actually said. "Hudak cited statistical data compiled by the Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence, claiming that for every woman who used a handgun to kill someone in self-defense, 83 were murdered by their own weapon, The Post reported." That is *not* what the Post reported. The post reported what Ms. Hudak actually said which was, "The Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence says that for every one woman who used a handgun to kill someone in self-defense, 83 were murdered by them." - See more at: http://evil-klown.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-colorado-coalition-again... id="stcpDiv" style="position: absolute; top: -1999px; left: -1988px;"> "Hudak cited statistical data compiled by the Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence, claiming that for every woman who used a handgun to kill someone in self-defense, 83 were murdered by their own weapon, The Post reported." That is *not* what the Post reported. The post reported what Ms. Hudak actually said which was, "The Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence says that for every one woman who used a handgun to kill someone in self-defense, 83 were murdered by them." - See more at: http://evil-klown.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-colorado-coalition-again... id="stcpDiv" style="position: absolute; top: -1999px; left: -1988px;">"Hudak cited statistical data compiled by the Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence, claiming that for every woman who used a handgun to kill someone in self-defense, 83 were murdered by their own weapon, The Post reported." That is *not* what the Post reported. The post reported what Ms. Hudak actually said which was, "The Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence says that for every one woman who used a handgun to kill someone in self-defense, 83 were murdered by them." What I'm wondering is what she actually meant by that because to me, it sounds like these dubious statistics coming from a spurious source are more of a convenience than actual science. Due to the lack of detail in her statement, it's entirely possible that she used total gun deaths to contrast gun deaths during a sexual assault. It is also possible that she's using statistics where the attacker was armed but the victim was not during a sexual assault. However since she is not specific, and since it's as hard to find a reference to "The Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence" as it is to find references to Afrighting Laws without Scalia being mentioned. - See more at: http://evil-klown.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-colorado-coalition-again... id="stcpDiv" style="position: absolute; top: -1999px; left: -1988px;">"Hudak cited statistical data compiled by the Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence, claiming that for every woman who used a handgun to kill someone in self-defense, 83 were murdered by their own weapon, The Post reported." That is *not* what the Post reported. The post reported what Ms. Hudak actually said which was, "The Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence says that for every one woman who used a handgun to kill someone in self-defense, 83 were murdered by them." What I'm wondering is what she actually meant by that because to me, it sounds like these dubious statistics coming from a spurious source are more of a convenience than actual science. Due to the lack of detail in her statement, it's entirely possible that she used total gun deaths to contrast gun deaths during a sexual assault. It is also possible that she's using statistics where the attacker was armed but the victim was not during a sexual assault. However since she is not specific, and since it's as hard to find a reference to "The Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence" as it is to find references to Afrighting Laws without Scalia being mentioned. - See more at: http://evil-klown.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-colorado-coalition-again... id="stcpDiv" style="position: absolute; top: -1999px; left: -1988px;">"Hudak cited statistical data compiled by the Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence, claiming that for every woman who used a handgun to kill someone in self-defense, 83 were murdered by their own weapon, The Post reported." That is *not* what the Post reported. The post reported what Ms. Hudak actually said which was, "The Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence says that for every one woman who used a handgun to kill someone in self-defense, 83 were murdered by them." What I'm wondering is what she actually meant by that because to me, it sounds like these dubious statistics coming from a spurious source are more of a convenience than actual science. Due to the lack of detail in her statement, it's entirely possible that she used total gun deaths to contrast gun deaths during a sexual assault. It is also possible that she's using statistics where the attacker was armed but the victim was not during a sexual assault. However since she is not specific, and since it's as hard to find a reference to "The Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence" as it is to find references to Afrighting Laws without Scalia being mentioned. - See more at: http://evil-klown.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-colorado-coalition-again... Edited by powerman 2013-06-28 4:37 PM |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() So, in response to my post saying, "I don't need a link to a survey to tell me that having a gun is probably more effective than not having a gun if I'm attacked," you're posting multiple links supporting your position that "politicians say dumb stuff sometimes"? Noted, Captain Obvious. Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2013-06-28 5:55 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Sensei ![]() | ![]() If we can refrain from personalizing or name calling it may help keep things civil. That's also forum policy. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn So, in response to my post saying, "I don't need a link to a survey to tell me that having a gun is probably more effective than not having a gun if I'm attacked," you're posting multiple links supporting your position that "politicians say dumb stuff sometimes"? Noted, Captain Obvious. No, I was just going with the general flow of the conversation and using your post as an example. That's really great that you got it all figured out, the people actually writing the laws either willfully ignore reality, or are just woefully ignorant of it. It's not all about you. Researching the stats, as Kido mentioned, brings up a host of misinformation form 15 year old studies. I would post it, but I'm sure the point is obvious to most.... well, at least you. Edited by powerman 2013-06-28 6:58 PM |
![]() ![]() |
![]() Originally posted by Kido Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by Kido Per the reference in the original post, this study focused on using a gun by crime victims for defense which resulted in fewer injuries than other methods. I wouldn't disagree with that. But that's ONLY what was stated. That's all they were studying. That's all they meant to study. You can widen any study to any level and still people will complain it wasn't wide enough, so they kept it to the "Is it more harmful or helpful to use a gun as a defensive item during an attack" That anyone would complain that a study with those parameters wasn't looking outside those parameters is just weird. We agree then. Unfortunately, I see it far too often that interest groups like to spin stats and studies to support their case and apply it to groups outside the parameters of the studies they reference. Not good science. But they are using it for politics, not science - so I guess it shouldn't be a surprise. If you're saying you agree fighting back with a firearm keeps you safer than fighting back with anything else or even not fighting back, then by all means we agree. |
![]() | Hopefully this gun owner will be convicted. Great role model. | ||
![]() | Medical Groups Oppose Gun-Law Change To Share Mental Health Records | ||
![]() | |||
![]() | |||
![]() |
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|