The fallacy of self defence by gun

[Captain Caveman]

.

I surrendered nothing ... You offered nothing and got nothing in return.
Whatever you have been told amounts to nothing more than empty rhetoric.

.​

Direct that to M14

 

[Captain Caveman]

ALL officers are currently trained very well in the use of firearms.

I don't want cops with less training on the streets

No they're not, you have instances where people are running in the opposite direction and get shot by cops. You obviously ignore your news.

You have cops with less training, because they're not adequately trained in the first place.

 

[marvin martian]

What is hilarious is when the British pieces of filth think they have any say or standing to tell us Americans how to run our country. We fought two bloody wars, specifically to establish that no, they have no such say or standing; that how we Americans run our country is none of the British filth's business.

I find myself, lately, very tempted to think that we need to have a third war to make this point much more forcefully than we did the two previous times; perhaps a war that ends with us taking over the UK, making it an American colony, and oppressing the British the same way that they once tried to oppress us.

Not a bad idea, except the UK is useless as a colony. They have no natural resources to speak of, and they're largely uneducated, fat, lazy, government parasites. They've destroyed whatever legitimacy they once had by opening their country to the dregs of the middle east and Africa, and turning it into a shitty welfare state.

The best use of it would be to put a wall around the whole thing and ship all the left-wingers there.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Not a bad idea, except the UK is useless as a colony. They have no natural resources to speak of, and they're largely uneducated, fat, lazy, government parasites. They've destroyed whatever legitimacy they once had by opening their country to the dregs of the middle east and Africa, and turning it into a shitty welfare state.

The best use of it would be to put a wall around the whole thing and ship all the left-wingers there.

You're a gun nut, so you live in an immutable position with them. That is your achilleas heal and the world pitys you.

 

[BlackSand]

Direct that to M14

.

Here's a test you can conduct that will prove firearms can provide defense capabilities ...
Load the firearm, make sure there is a round in the chamber, release the safety if applicable,
cock the firearm if applicable, look down the barrel and pull the trigger.

If you are still able to type, you need to buy a better firearm ...


.​

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

David Hemenway....the author of the study?

guns aren't used in self defense...cause I say so....

That is his argument....

Meanwhile....

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)


2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

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..

2021 national firearms survey..

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey

“Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.

This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use. It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths.” ibid

The lie that dishonest conservatives attempt to propagate is that because of these facts, efforts will be made to ‘ban’ or ‘confiscate’ guns – when in fact no one seeks to ‘ban’ or ‘confiscate’ guns.

Conservatives make the mistake of attempting to ‘justify’ gun ownership with claims of ‘self-defense,’ where the research clearly demonstrates no such ‘justification’ exists.

Citizens have the right to carry firearms, even when used less than 1% of time in self-defense.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Gun ownership and firearm-related deaths - PubMed

Conclusion: The number of guns per capita per country was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death in a given country, whereas the predictive power of the mental illness burden was of borderline significance in a multivariable model. Regardless of exact cause and effect, however, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer.

 

[Blues Man]

No they're not, you have instances where people are running in the opposite direction and get shot by cops. You obviously ignore your news.

You have cops with less training, because they're not adequately trained in the first place.

Very rare incidences

 

[Cellblock2429]

I've always stated that needing a gun for self defence was a fallacy, and we all know it is. So what's with the gun nuts running off and copying pasting articles from shady sources?

Well look no further, just simply check with Harvard and the studies -

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

Pardon the pun, Harvard blow holes in the gun nut's self defence argument.

So anyone arming up for the mistaken belief they need to for self defence against others, they're the worst candidate to own a gun.

/——-/ Why do personal security guards for liberal democrats carry guns?

 

[Blues Man]

/——-/ Why do personal security guards for liberal democrats carry guns?

His beloved bag of bones Queen has armed guards

 

[Captain Caveman]

/——-/ Why do personal security guards for liberal democrats carry guns?

For the self defence fallacy

 

[Captain Caveman]

Very rare incidences

Just like the self defence stats.

 

[2aguy]

“Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.

This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use. It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths.” ibid

The lie that dishonest conservatives attempt to propagate is that because of these facts, efforts will be made to ‘ban’ or ‘confiscate’ guns – when in fact no one seeks to ‘ban’ or ‘confiscate’ guns.

Conservatives make the mistake of attempting to ‘justify’ gun ownership with claims of ‘self-defense,’ where the research clearly demonstrates no such ‘justification’ exists.

Citizens have the right to carry firearms, even when used less than 1% of time in self-defense.

The national crime victimizzation survey couldn’t count actual rape stats correctly and never even asks about defensive gun uses….

….but still gets around 87,000 defensive gun uses a year reported through their survey.


There are 18 studies that specifically ask about defensive gun use…..the study from the Centers For Disease Control puts the number at 1.1 million while the Dept. of Justice study puts it at 1.5 milion

And those are just two

In 2013 Obama ordered the CDC to review all gun related research….the 10 milion dollars spent on that project found defensive gun use between 500-3 million times a year…

So I just pointed out 3 out of the 18 actual studies……how do you claim there aren’t any?

 

[2aguy]

Gun ownership and firearm-related deaths - PubMed

Conclusion: The number of guns per capita per country was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death in a given country, whereas the predictive power of the mental illness burden was of borderline significance in a multivariable model. Regardless of exact cause and effect, however, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer.

I gave you the Harvard study that states the exact opposite…

 

[Blues Man]

Just like the self defence stats.

REally?

The lowest end of the estimates for DGUs is still in the hundreds of thousands annually

How many cops shoot a person in the back annually?

 

[2aguy]

Gun ownership and firearm-related deaths - PubMed

Conclusion: The number of guns per capita per country was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death in a given country, whereas the predictive power of the mental illness burden was of borderline significance in a multivariable model. Regardless of exact cause and effect, however, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer.

From Harvard....the study you don't want to talk about...

Hey...they even talk about Britain..........

ccording to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.​

-----
When Kates and Mauser compared England with the United States, they found “’a negative correlation,’ that is, ‘where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest.’ There is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates.”
-----
In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released an evaluation from its review of existing research. After reviewing 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and its own original empirical research, it failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents, note Kates and Mauser.

“The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control,” write Kates and Mauser. “Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become one. Handguns are banned but the Kingdom has millions of illegal firearms. Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the decade after 1957, the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold. In the late 1990s, England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban of all handguns and many types of long guns. Hundreds of thousands of guns were confiscated from those owners law-abiding enough to turn them in to authorities.” But crime increased instead of decreasing.

Harvard University Study Reveals Astonishing Link Between Firearms, Crime and Gun Control

According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.

www.beliefnet.com

 

[Captain Caveman]

From Harvard....the study you don't want to talk about...

Hey...they even talk about Britain..........

ccording to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.​

-----
When Kates and Mauser compared England with the United States, they found “’a negative correlation,’ that is, ‘where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest.’ There is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates.”
-----
In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released an evaluation from its review of existing research. After reviewing 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and its own original empirical research, it failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents, note Kates and Mauser.

“The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control,” write Kates and Mauser. “Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become one. Handguns are banned but the Kingdom has millions of illegal firearms. Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the decade after 1957, the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold. In the late 1990s, England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban of all handguns and many types of long guns. Hundreds of thousands of guns were confiscated from those owners law-abiding enough to turn them in to authorities.” But crime increased instead of decreasing.

Harvard University Study Reveals Astonishing Link Between Firearms, Crime and Gun Control

According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.

www.beliefnet.com

Well, this is the problem with weird sites posting "proposed studies". If you look at your source and the details, then check it out on why it lacks info and goes against all the studies, the article appears in a publication. It does not appear to be a peer-reviewed journal, or one that is searching for truth as opposed to presenting a certain world view. The paper itself is not a scientific article, but a polemic, making the claim that gun availability does not affect homicide or suicide. It does this by ignoring most of the scientific literature, and by making too many incorrect and illogical claims.

So I suggest to do proper research and stop falling for the gun fallacy.

 

[WinterBorn]

I've always stated that needing a gun for self defence was a fallacy, and we all know it is. So what's with the gun nuts running off and copying pasting articles from shady sources?

Well look no further, just simply check with Harvard and the studies -

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

Pardon the pun, Harvard blow holes in the gun nut's self defence argument.

So anyone arming up for the mistaken belief they need to for self defence against others, they're the worst candidate to own a gun.

They blew holes in nothing.

I am a 62 year old man. I'm still in decent shape. But if I am attacked by 2 or 3 young men, I am going to lose. Should my life be in the hands of young thugs who have already demonstrated they do not care for my safety?

If I am out and see a violent crime being committed, I will be the good citizen and help. But just like I will not drown trying to save someone from drowning, I will not just add to the victim's list but being unarmed.

When I used to work on the road, I would stop and help a stranded motorist. I would do that because I felt confident I could do so without dying.

 

[Captain Caveman]

They blew holes in nothing.

I am a 62 year old man. I'm still in decent shape. But if I am attacked by 2 or 3 young men, I am going to lose. Should my life be in the hands of young thugs who have already demonstrated they do not care for my safety?

If I am out and see a violent crime being committed, I will be the good citizen and help. But just like I will not drown trying to save someone from drowning, I will not just add to the victim's list but being unarmed.

When I used to work on the road, I would stop and help a stranded motorist. I would do that because I felt confident I could do so without dying.

Blimey, when did you get attacked

 

[Mac-7]

No they're not, you have instances where people are running in the opposite direction and get shot by cops. You obviously ignore your news.

You have cops with less training, because they're not adequately trained in the first place.

Like the man said, when seconds count the cops are only minutes away



Not heard on this recording is the exchange that prompted the headline

The wife shot the intruder

But instead of running away he just kept coming

What do I do now she asks?

Shoot ‘em again the husband shouts!

Which she did