The fallacy of self defence by gun

[2aguy]

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.

This covers Hemenway and his first attempts to lie about defensive gun use....

Instead, pro-control critics have focussed their efforts on their claim that, despite the enormous body of evidence indicating otherwise, DGU is actually rare. Thus, they argue, it is of little consequence for gun control policy that DGU is effective, since it is so infrequent. The critics’ discussion of the topic of the frequency of DGU is strident, polemical, and extreme. For example, Philip Cook and his colleagues baldly describe large estimates of DGU frequency as a “mythical number” (1997, p. 463).

Likewise, an article by David Hemenway (1997a) was brazenly titled “The Myth of Millions of Annual Self-Defense Gun Uses.” In another article by Hemenway (1997b), his title implicitly took it as given that DGUs are rare, and that surveys indicating the opposite grossly overstate DGU frequency.

For Hemenway, the only scholarly task that remained was to explain why surveys did this: “Survey Research and Self-Defense Gun Use: An Explanation of Extreme Overestimation.” Finally, McDowall and Wiersema (1994), although well aware of the large number of surveys yielding large DGU estimates, nevertheless flatly concluded, in extremely strong terms, that “armed self -defense is extremely rare” (p. 1884).

This conclusion was based entirely on a single survey, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which did not even directly ask respondents about defensive gun use.

These critics do not mainly support the low-DGU thesis by affirmatively presenting relevant empirical evidence indicating few DGUs. The only empirical evidence affirmatively cited in support of the low-DGU thesis is the uniquely low estimates derived from the NCVS. The critics appear in no way embarrassed by the fact that the only national estimate they can cite in support of their theory is a survey that does not even ask respondents the key question––whether they have used a gun for self-protection. Instead, the critics get around the large volume of contrary survey evidence by pronouncing all of it invalid and

https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/journals/JFPP11.pdf

 

[whitehall]

The Harvard "epidemiological theory " of self defense? Nuff said.

 

[2aguy]

I stopped after reading this:

"We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid."

The reason I stopped was because it doesn't matter. What matters is not the sum total, but the individual cases.

Also, that so-called "study" is a bunch of horseshit. Consider this:

"We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17 years, which asked questions about gun threats against and self-defense gun use by these young people. We found that these young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense,"

Well, no shit. Of course people ages 12-17 aren't going to use a gun for self defense. You know why that is? Because people ages 12-17 aren't allowed to own guns.

Also, given your very first sentence in this thread, I knew this was going to be nothing more than anti-gun liberal whining.

I'm alive today because I was armed, and there's not a study in the world which will ever negate that. Are there millions of people like me?

Goddamn, I hope so...

Thank you.

Hemenway is an anti-gun fanatic and he has been using shoddy/fake research for years....

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

Proof that I need to keep and bear arms.

 

[Ringtone]

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.

Aside from your study, how the hell would needing/wanting a gun for self-defense be a fallacy?

 

[Sunsettommy]

David Hamenway is a fraud who published in places where it doesn't meet the research standards as the following shows:

NRA-ILA

Does Anti-Gun Researcher David Hemenway Have Something To Hide?​

FRIDAY, MARCH 24, 2006

Excerpt:

It is common practice among legitimate researchers to give their peers access to data used in their studies, so that other researchers can review both the data and the methodology used in their analysis. Without such "peer review," a study`s findings typically are not assumed to be valid. Many scholarly journals will not even publish an article summarizing the results of a study until the data and methodology have been peer reviewed.

Regrettably, however, medical and public health journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association, routinely publish articles on studies by anti-gun researchers held to a lower degree of scrutiny and academic standards. As civil rights lawyer and firearm issue scholar, Don B. Kates, has explained, since 1979 elements of the American public health community have promoted "gun control" by funding, producing and publishing studies that "prostitute scholarship, systematically inventing, misinterpreting, selecting, or otherwise manipulating data to validate preordained political conclusions."1

LINK

===

The below shows that David Hamenway has a bad habit of avoiding real gun owners in his "surveys" he relies on "experts" to drive his conclusions.

Debunked Harvard Researcher Cites Sociology ‘Experts’ to Claim More Guns Equal More Crime​

Deeply Flawed Anti-gun Study Successfully Refuted​

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth​

 

[Captain Caveman]

And thus, yours.
When you can show how your "Harvard link" addresses, much less Invalidates. the information I presnted , let us know.

177300 + 123800 / 3 = 100,000 defensive gun uses per year.

View attachment 646925

Demonstrate that guns in self defence had valid evidence

I accept your surrender.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Bloody hell, checked USMB this morning and had 25 mouth frothing alerts to this thread. I won't be checking all that crap. But just after skip reading, people are still replying in a way that highlights the fact they didn't read the link in the OP.

 

[fncceo]

Why do cops carry guns, then?

Because cops that don't, like UK police, are assaulted by members of the public a double the rate of US cops.

Assaults on police in England and Wales rise above 100 a day during pandemic

Officer morale sinks in the 43 forces as attacks rise by 20% during the Covid crisis

www.theguardian.com

 

[Captain Caveman]

View attachment 646920View attachment 646921View attachment 646922View attachment 646924

If you took the time to read the link in the OP, straight out of the bat, it states -

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 incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

So you can run off and find the odd newspaper article on self defence, but many of the millions of reported cases were found to be invalid. Do you understand this?

It's probably gun nuts hyping the situation up, but reality and evidence proves otherwise.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Because cops that don't, like UK police, are assaulted by members of the public a double the rate of US cops.

Assaults on police in England and Wales rise above 100 a day during pandemic

Officer morale sinks in the 43 forces as attacks rise by 20% during the Covid crisis

www.theguardian.com

Yes, cops carry pepper spray and tasers in the UK. If there's an armed situation, various police are called in because those ones are trained to use firearms. Guns are controlled very tightly in the UK as opposed to being viewed as a joke in the US, this is why American cops shoot people in the back when they're running away. Everything doesn't need resolved by a gun, yet Americans feel it's the first tool in the box, before they open their mouths.

 

[2aguy]

If you took the time to read the link in the OP, straight out of the bat, it states -

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 incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

So you can run off and find the odd newspaper article on self defence, but many of the millions of reported cases were found to be invalid. Do you understand this?

It's probably gun nuts hyping the situation up, but reality and evidence proves otherwise.

They used left wing judges to tell them that thugs used guns for crime.......this isn't real research you twit......

They can's say there aren't millions of defensive gun uses....cause we don't like guns, ........

I listed 18 studies on guns used for self defense....over decades, conducted by actual researchers from both the government and private sector....you have a known, anti-gun fanatic who has been shown over the years to use fake and shoddy methods....

 

[2aguy]

Yes, cops carry pepper spray and tasers in the UK. If there's an armed situation, various police are called in because those ones are trained to use firearms. Guns are controlled very tightly in the UK as opposed to being viewed as a joke in the US, this is why American cops shoot people in the back when they're running away. Everything doesn't need resolved by a gun, yet Americans feel it's the first tool in the box, before they open their mouths.

And yet guns are flooding the U.K. and criminals have easy access to them...

Police struggle to stop flood of firearms into UK


Police and border officials are struggling to stop a rising supply of illegal firearms being smuggled into Britain, a senior police chief has warned.

Chief constable Andy Cooke, the national police lead for serious and organised crime, said law enforcement had seen an increased supply of guns over the past year, and feared that it would continue in 2019

The Guardian has learned that the situation is so serious that the National Crime Agency has taken the rare step of using its legal powers to direct every single police force to step up the fight against illegal guns.

The NCA has used tasking powers to direct greater intelligence about firearms to be gathered by all 43 forces in England and Wales.

Another senior law enforcement official said that “new and clean” weapons were now being used in the majority of shootings, as opposed to guns once being so difficult to obtain that they would be “rented out” to be used in multiple crimes.

Cooke, the Merseyside chief constable, told the Guardian: “We in law enforcement expect the rise in new firearms to continue. We are doing all we can. We are not in a position to stop it anytime soon.

“Law enforcement is more joined up now than before, but the scale of the problem is such that despite a number of excellent firearms seizures, I expect the rise in supply to be a continuing issue.”

The increasing supply of guns belies problems with UK border security and innovations by organised crime gangs. Smugglers have increasingly found new ways and innovative routes to get guns past border defences.


Cooke said that the dynamics of the streets of British cities had changed and that criminals were more willing to use guns: “If they bring them in people will buy them. It’s a kudos thing for organised criminals.”

Simon Brough, head of firearms at the NCA, said: “The majority of guns being used are new, clean firearms ... which indicates a relatively fluid supply.”

He said shotguns were 40% of the total, with an increase in burglaries to try and steal them.

Handguns are the next biggest category, most often smuggled in from overseas, with ferry ports such as Dover being a popular entry point into the UK for organised crime groups:

“We’re doing a lot to fight back against it,” Brough said, adding that compared to other European countries, the availability in the UK was relatively lower.
==========

Powerful automatic guns are being smuggled into Britain for use by organised crime gangs.

The National Crime Agency and police seized weapons in raids on the homes of previously untouchable “Mr Big”s after receiving intelligence from European detectives who broke an encrypted phone network used by drug dealers and gun traffickers.

Gangs bring rapid‑fire guns to Britain’s streets

Matt Perfect, the crime agency’s firearms threat lead, said that new Skorpion and G9A automatic pistols, which fire at a speed comparable to an AK47 assault rifle, were found.



=====
cotland Yard today said police are seizing more deadly automatic weapons from criminals in London as detectives revealed that an innocent bystander was gunned down with a suspected Skorpion sub-machine gun last month .

Rise in sub-machine guns on London streets

A former undercover cop who snared members of the Burger Bar Boys has warned violent gangs are in an “arms race” to control the West Midlands’ illegal drugs trade.

Neil Woods, now a campaigner to legalise recreational drugs for rehabilitation benefits, said criminals are willing to use “extreme violence” to gain an upper hand on their competitors.

That includes “importing” illegal firearms from places like the “Balkans” region of south eastern Europe onto the streets of the West Midlands, ready for combat.

UK Gangs In "Arms Race" Despite Gun Control Laws

 

[fncceo]

Yes, cops carry pepper spray and tasers in the UK.

Cops in the US carry pepper spray and batons, many carry CED (Tasers). Collectively, everything from OC spray to a firearms are called "options". An officer uses his training and judgement to select the option most appropriate to the situation and use it. Frequently, officers working in teams will use different options to play off the strengths of each.

No single option is appropriate in every situation.

In most circumstances, a firearm's primary function is a deterrent to assaulting a police officer. Even the guy who is convinced heis a total bad-ass will be hesitant to take on an armed police officer. While an officer carrying only non-lethal options is a much easier target.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

It only takes one time.

And people use their guns to protect themselves the fact that more people aren't shot in DGU's is proof of the incredible restraint exhibited by law abiding gun owners.

As the old saying goes

Better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it.

 

[Blues Man]

When did you get cornered? Do you know the date and place?

That's right you think violent crime doesn't exist.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

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.

Shady sources like the CDC that spent 10,000,000.00 studying it and determined that there are anywhere from 500,000-3,000,000 DGU's per year?

One of the worst articles ever done on the subject.

According to interviews with prisoners guns deter upwards of a million crimes each year simply by would be attackers being made aware that a gun is present and/or someone there is willing to use it.

Every day criminals seek the softest targets possible.

Unless a gun is fired and/or reported as being involved to the police it won't even be mentioned in a report absent hard physical evidence such as an obvious gun shot wound or misses found in the dirt or striking property along with pass throughs.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Pick the studies out of the article and link the articles that examines and rebuffs them.

NRA-ILA | Armed Citizen®

Collection of armed citizens exercising their right to self-defense.

www.nraila.org

Several thousand well documented reports here.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Whatever the truth may be, statistics prove that America got it wrong.

And will undoubtedly continue to get it wrong for the foreseeable future!

Dog help them if the blacks start shooting back at the police!

They've been shooting at police for as long as blacks have had access to firearms in the US.

Perhaps you should study up a bit before running your yap.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

Harvard is a left leaning university. Cherry picking data for Gun grabbing at a later date.

My Mother N Law was living in a high crime area. We couldn't get her to leave her home. By GOD I'VE LIVED HERE ALL MY LIFE and I'm not leaving. They broke down the back door while she was home and she yelled at them..........We were lucky on this one they ran away. We repaired the back door and said you need to move. We bought here A GUN.......OMFG.......32 pistol.

Next call........they were trying to break in the front door.........She yelled and shot 2 holes into the front door...........They left. She still wouldn't leave.

Next door neighbor..........they broke into the home and shot him to death in his own bed for his prescription drugs........Killed him dead. Finally she had enough and we moved her out of that neighborhood. We were ALL ARMED WHEN WE MOVED HER.

Little old granny still alive. Man next door dead as a door nail.

Screw your study Harvard.