Better check your math.
Guns are used at in self-defense at least 80,000 times per year.
http://vpc.org/studies/justifiable19.pdf (Table 6)
Compare this to 9092 gun-related murders per year.
Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
That's about 9:1 in favor of defensive gun uses.
hold it--so you are saying it's not over a MILLION times a year??
80,000 is not even close to a million....?
Look at you, completely ignoring the fact the numbers are about 9:1 in favor of defensive gun uses over gun-related murders.
-You- said:
for every SD use, there are dozens of murders
How can you be so wrong?
so there are NOT millions of SD uses like 2AGuy says?? !!!??
9:1 murders/crimes with firearms per DS uses
stop the stupid shit..there is no way and can be no way there are more SD uses than murders and shootings --not even counting crimes
again, everyday we see a murder/murders --day after day ...then we finally see ONE SD use and you people go crazy --EUREKA --an SD use!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! finally
= idiocy
...there are documented and reported murders everyday--but not SD uses --plain and simple
The research is vast and comprehensive.....you have to deny it because you can't back up what you say...
A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense
GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys
Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)
Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)
CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)
Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million
--------------------
Bordua...1977...1,414,544
DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)
Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)
Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)
Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)
DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)
Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the
Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.
[18])
Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000.
Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043
Gallup...1991...777,152
Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)
Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
Self defense with a gun:
Why don't we have a hard number on this....?
Estimates On Defensive Firearm Use Pose A Major Problem. Here's Why.
When a gun owner presents a firearm during a threat to their life, they often don’t even need to pull the trigger. After all, a criminal with a knife or a hammer or something else will rarely decide the few dollars in someone’s wallet is worth being killed over.
As a result, even if the police are called—and they’re often not, which I’ll get into in a bit—there’s nothing for the FBI or other law enforcement to track except for the initial robbery attempt.
And, again, that assumes the police are called. Often, gun owners don’t pick up the phone.
This failure to call the police is often cited by anti-gun crusaders as evidence that it didn’t really happen. However, it’s simply not true. The gun community has plenty of stories of people who appear to have done everything right, only to become the target of an overzealous police department or prosecutor. While these folks usually end up in the clear, it’s a long, arduous, and expensive ordeal.
As the meme says, “Ain’t nobody got time for that.”
So, many continue to just go about their day. No shots were fired, so why risk it?
And even if the police are called, it doesn’t guarantee that a report will be generated. I’ve personally seen that happen, as well.
The result of all of this is a real problem in tracking self-defense statistics. We only have estimates, which vary wildly.
However, it still bears noting that even the most conservative estimates of defensive gun uses are several times higher than the number of firearm-related fatalities, even if you continue to add in suicide statistics, which anti-gunners are fond of doing.
Take those out and the difference is an even starker contrast.
And here we have studies that show that guns are the most effective way to stop a rape.....
Guns Effective Defense Against Rape
A woman using a gun is less likely to be raped and more likely to not be injured during the attack....
Guns Effective Defense Against Rape
However, most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.
I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance. This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.
First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.
Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).
Third, a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.
Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes,"Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion." (Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished "without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."
The best conclusion from available scientific data, then, is when avoidance of rape has failed and one must choose between being raped and resisting, a woman's best option is to resist with a gun in her hands.