Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The last CDC study showed that were thousands of cases of self defense with guns every year. But you know that, it has been posted on here dozens of times. You choose to ignore facts that don't back up your anti-gun rhetoric.
You are referring to the The Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence study from 2013.
Here is what that report has to say about defensive gun use.
Quote:
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence." Institute of Medicine and . 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18319. ×
Add a note to your bookmark
defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.
Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.
Essentially they are saying they have no accurate data about defensive gun use, the metrics to measure successful defensive gun use isn't agreed upon and they aren't sure that the pros outweigh the cons.
Sad for you this is the best statistic that exists for defensive gun use and its by its own admission doesn't know whether guns are useful as a defensive measure or not.
If defensive gun use is common, it would be in the interest of the NRA to pressure the CDC to track and measure such statistics. Yet, they have done the complete opposite. Why? because they know any detailed study would be condemning of firearm ownership and would support broad regulation. Hence you have no positive stats to rely on.
^
In most defensive gun uses, no shots are fired, and nothing ever gets reported. The attacker runs off when confronted with a gun, and the (no longer) victim puts their gun away, and goes about their business. These don't make it into the statistics or the news.
And even where there are defensive shootings, there are no rules requiring statics collection. Why? Because this would include police shooting, and a lot of jurisdictions don't what to report those.
A few years ago I heard it said that Washington had the highest per-capita NRA membership of any state. Undeniably, the state has traditionally opposed common-sense gun safety. A democratic governor even signed into law legalization of silencers in 2011. I don't know who needs a silencer other than an assassin or a gangster. I know that silencers were very popular among NY mafia back in the heyday of the Gambinos etc.
But the climate here has improved. I credit an influx of well-educated Californians, and well-informed millennial tech workers. Initiative 594, to mandate universal background checks, passed 59-40% in 2014. A coalition of concerned citizens, including Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Steve Ballmer, and Nick Hanauer (Amazon investor) generously donated to get it passed.
Now we have Initiative 1639, to restrict assault-style weapons. It's a good first step. There has always been confusion about the definition of 'assault style weapon.' I-1639 defines all semi-automatic style weapons as assault weapons. From the initiative: https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_I..._Measure_(2018)
I'm not a gun expert, so this is all Greek to me, but I'm told that this definition encompasses all semi-automatic-style weapons. This greatly simplifies things. No longer to police have to wonder whether the gun with the 'barrel shroud' is legal or not. The one thing I wish they had included is regulation of the high magazine clips. I think that is key, but they left it off.
Based on recent voting trends in the state, I think this will easily pass. Finally we will be on the road to common sense gun safety, as other advanced states such as California and New York.
It's always a "first step, " isn't it?
BTW, despite your adopting an air of superiority with respect to those you think you float above, you're not as "well-educated" as you think you are, if you're not aware that WA already has a myriad of "common sense" gun laws on the books (therefore, this is no "first step").
And believe me, you didn't have to volunteer that you're not a gun expert.
^
In most defensive gun uses, no shots are fired, and nothing ever gets reported. The attacker runs off when confronted with a gun, and the (no longer) victim puts their gun away, and goes about their business. These don't make it into the statistics or the news.
And even where there are defensive shootings, there are no rules requiring statics collection. Why? Because this would include police shooting, and a lot of jurisdictions don't what to report those.
Assaults or violent threats tend to occur more often in a public or social setting. Being that others will most likely be present when such events occur. The probably that bystanders wouldn't call the police after witnessing someone pull a gun on an attacker is highly improbable. Events like this would show up in police crime statistics for sure. The fact that they aren't there is telling.
Assaults or violent threats tend to occur more often in a public or social setting. Being that others will most likely be present when such events occur. The probably that bystanders wouldn't call the police after witnessing someone pull a gun on an attacker is highly improbable. Events like this would show up in police crime statistics for sure. The fact that they aren't there is telling.
Don't confuse brandishing with someone handling a legal firearm. Two different things. There is no crime stat because it's not a crime in most States.
Don't confuse brandishing with someone handling a legal firearm. Two different things. There is no crime stat because it's not a crime in most States.
You may be a legal gun owner but bystanders witnessing such an event wouldn't always know that and you can bet in 99% of cases where this occurs the police would be called. Also just because someone backs down from an assault just because a gun is shown, does not mean they will not be returning at some later point with their own gun. Armed individuals get shot and killed on a daily basis. I don't count gun owners as typically very bright, but I suspect most of them are smart enough to notify the police if such an event was to occur. Knowing full well that the initial attacker may return.
Legally drawing a gun if your life is threatened my not be a crime but assaulting or threatening someone to the point where drawing or brandishing a firearm is needed is a crime. So a police report would be written and documented in such an event. If 100,000 to 2 million defensive gun uses were occurring annually we should have mountains of evidence for it, but there isn't. Which tells me, its a very rare occurrence.
You may be a legal gun owner but bystanders witnessing such an event wouldn't always know that and you can bet in 99% of cases where this occurs the police would be called. Also just because someone backs down from an assault just because a gun is shown, does not mean they will not be returning at some later point with their own gun. Armed individuals get shot and killed on a daily basis. I don't count gun owners as typically very bright, but I suspect most of them are smart enough to notify the police if such an event was to occur. Knowing full well that the initial attacker may return.
Legally drawing a gun if your life is threatened my not be a crime but assaulting or threatening someone to the point where drawing or brandishing a firearm is needed is a crime. So a police report would be written and documented in such an event. If 100,000 to 2 million defensive gun uses were occurring annually we should have mountains of evidence for it, but there isn't. Which tells me, its a very rare occurrence.
Again, using a weapon for defense is not illegal so there is no crime stat for that. Using a firearm to rob a bank is so there is the crime stat. My wife was surrounded by 3 idiots while we were in the sticks. She brandished they left and they called the cops. There was a report, no ticket. No crime stat. There isn't any data showing legal use of firearms. If you brandished and they find a reason to ticket you yes, if all legal no. Pulling a firearm for self defense is not illegal.
Most robbery attempts take place when no one else beside the attacker and victim are around. Crooks may be stupid, but they're not THAT stupid (well some are.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno
Assaults or violent threats tend to occur more often in a public or social setting. Being that others will most likely be present when such events occur. The probably that bystanders wouldn't call the police after witnessing someone pull a gun on an attacker is highly improbable. Events like this would show up in police crime statistics for sure. The fact that they aren't there is telling.
Again, using a weapon for defense is not illegal so there is no crime stat for that. Using a firearm to rob a bank is so there is the crime stat. My wife was surrounded by 3 idiots while we were in the sticks. She brandished they left and they called the cops. There was a report, no ticket. No crime stat. There isn't any data showing legal use of firearms. If you brandished and they find a reason to ticket you yes, if all legal no. Pulling a firearm for self defense is not illegal.
By your own admission, they filed a report. So they have the information on record on what transpired during the course of the of the event. So the data does exist. I suspect in most cases where this does transpire their is a corresponding police report.
They know roughly how many people accidentally shot themselves with their own weapon in a given year via hospital records. I struggle to believe that such data regarding defensive gun use could be collected and analyzed. Why wouldn't the NRA or any other gun organization want this information collected and analyzed? My guess is that they suspect the information wouldn't support their position and thus don't see the purpose of pursuing it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's always a "first step, " isn't it?
