Here's a useful site -
Gun resources
It's useful because when it states some gun/incident fact, most have the link to the study on that fact. This avoids dissing the source or not providing evidence on your opinion.
So for example -
In a robbery or an assault, studies show people without a gun are just as likely to escape harm as people who are carrying one.
In the link in that claim, you can click to the PDF to its evidence/studies. Then you can read the facts -
We could not find a basic, thorough, descriptive epidemiologic analysis of self-defense gun use using NCVS data—describing who uses guns, where and in what circumstances. Among relevant studies (Tark and Kleck, 2004; McDowall and Wiersema, 1994), the study (Hart and Miethe, 2009) that comes closest to that target analyzes the data in a manner that is not particularly helpful for policy or individual decision-making. That study by Hart and Miethe divides crime situations into 48 categories, as determined by five variables as follows: (a) sexual assault, non-sexual assault, or robbery; (b) offender armed or not; (c) daytime or not; (d) private or public location; and (e) offender on drugs/alcohol or not. These situations are then ranked by the likelihood that a firearm is used in self-defense. Not surprisingly, very low incident categories have both the highest rates and the lowest rates of self-defense gun use. For example, the highest incident rate of self-defense gun use—17% of the time (1/6)—occurred in sexual assaults, when the offender was armed, in a private location, during the day, when the offender was high on drugs/alcohol; the lowest rate—0% of the time (0/7)—occurred for robberies in a private location at night when the offender was armed and high on drugs/alcohol.
So "crime" was broken down into 48 categories, as opposed to just crime. So now if anyone wants to make a claim or lay opinion, you can check beforehand.
I can see this being a valuable resource !!!!!
Gun resources
It's useful because when it states some gun/incident fact, most have the link to the study on that fact. This avoids dissing the source or not providing evidence on your opinion.
So for example -
In a robbery or an assault, studies show people without a gun are just as likely to escape harm as people who are carrying one.
In the link in that claim, you can click to the PDF to its evidence/studies. Then you can read the facts -
We could not find a basic, thorough, descriptive epidemiologic analysis of self-defense gun use using NCVS data—describing who uses guns, where and in what circumstances. Among relevant studies (Tark and Kleck, 2004; McDowall and Wiersema, 1994), the study (Hart and Miethe, 2009) that comes closest to that target analyzes the data in a manner that is not particularly helpful for policy or individual decision-making. That study by Hart and Miethe divides crime situations into 48 categories, as determined by five variables as follows: (a) sexual assault, non-sexual assault, or robbery; (b) offender armed or not; (c) daytime or not; (d) private or public location; and (e) offender on drugs/alcohol or not. These situations are then ranked by the likelihood that a firearm is used in self-defense. Not surprisingly, very low incident categories have both the highest rates and the lowest rates of self-defense gun use. For example, the highest incident rate of self-defense gun use—17% of the time (1/6)—occurred in sexual assaults, when the offender was armed, in a private location, during the day, when the offender was high on drugs/alcohol; the lowest rate—0% of the time (0/7)—occurred for robberies in a private location at night when the offender was armed and high on drugs/alcohol.
So "crime" was broken down into 48 categories, as opposed to just crime. So now if anyone wants to make a claim or lay opinion, you can check beforehand.
I can see this being a valuable resource !!!!!
