Largest Ever Survey of American Gun Owners Defensive Gun Uses

REPORTED non fatal firearm victimizations per year.
Additionally: If I don't get victimized, or have to actually shoot someone and deal with a body an injury or neighbors awoken by gunfire, I don't report it.

Its like the UN counting the number of guns manufactured: they neglect the ones made by home manufacturing.

 

It's not astronomical in countries like the Australia and the UK.

Gun apologists keep claiming there is a very large number of DGU's. How is that mathematically possible when study after study shows that gun ownership is a risk factor for homicide? People like me are safer despite not having access to a gun to use in self defense.

It would be like claiming: "A survey revealed that millions of people claim to use cigarettes to cure lung cancer." But the truth is that smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer.

 

Fail.

"Guns and domestic violence are a deadly combination. Every sixteen hours, a woman is fatally shot by her intimate partner in the United States; the mere presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide for women by 500 percent."
https://scholar.smu.edu/law_faculty/810/

 

1) it's a thing still in both,
2) they're Islands (or an island continent) with no strong tradition of gun ownership in the last 200 years and with a strongly authoritarian government (they still respect the monarchy ffs)
3) they also suffer from various other high victimization of violent crime rates
4) criminalize many forms of defense or keeping a weapon for the purposes of defense much less bearing it
5) none of them are packing 40+% of the world's reported manufactured guns and an obscenely larger amount when you take into account home manufacturing which is common and has been the entire time we've been a nation and before.

As to your studies: You mean the ones where they counted a gun in the house as one the intruder had broken in with?

If you go back and read the responses in this thread and others I believe someone has pointed out to you the flaw in those studies you're citing.

If not I'm sure @TOG 6 or @Turtledude would be glad to educate the spectators by informing you again as I recall it was one of the two who pointed it out to you in the first place and I'll admit I'm too lazy to dig up a quote you won't listen to.

 

What are you going to do about it?

 

Because those studies include criminals in the case group. We acknowledge that criminals with guns are dangerous. That's why we made it a crime for them to own a gun. Successful DGUs don't show up in the statistics, as people who don't own firearms can't have a DGU. They're the victims.

Those studies also show results based on a gun ownership rate, with a failed proxy to determine that gun ownership rate, and they've also shown that living alone or renting are significantly higher risk factors for homicide in the home than a gun in the home is. This has been mentioned before - why do you always ignore it.

That I could believe.

Are you denying that DGUs occur? Cigarettes never cure cancer, but successful DGUs do occur. Your analogy fails.

 

.

 

Re:

Where were all these happy-go-lucky hoplophobes, the police, and VPC "study" wonks when I was dealing with my 3 real life DGUs?

Finally, there's a study (the OP) that represents real people in real life just going about their everyday business.

Re:

I'll be sure to remind the 3 thugs who are in the process of beating me senseless, shooting my dogs, ransacking my home and raping my wife that they're not "mathematically possible" according to another of VPC's pseudo studies.

 

I think another problem is people tend to define offensive use as defensive to justify it's use.
A chicken farmer shooting a coyote. Is it defensive or offensive?
How about a farmer waving a gun at someone cutting through their field.
Or showing a gun to a tailgater?

 

You cannot demonstrate anything resembling a rational basis for this claim.

 

Coyote: Defense from depredation by a predator.
Farmer: Defense of property from trespassing
Driver: That would be a felony.

 

See what I mean?
The coyote was minding his own business. There was the offensive deletion of a potential predator.
The guy taking a shortcut was no threat to property or owner.
Not a felony. Brandishing a firearm in self defense is legal. The driver did not feel threatened he just wanted the a hole to back off so he offensively displayed a firearm and he could say he felt threatened if challenged.

 

A coyote on my property is not minding any business I need brook against my chattels. Defense from depredation is defense.
Trespass is a crime and presents a potential threat to the property owner. I don't KNOW he's just taking a shortcut. Nor do I have to brook such things. Your trespass is the offense.
In self defense yes, but that's not the situation you describe. Per se.

 

Have you even seen, live or video, a coyote eating a newly born calf? It's a defensive use.

Offensive/defensive isn't the issue; legal/illegal is.

 

There you go. Evaluating offensive vs defensive gun use is subjective and as I wrote people would rather see their use as defensive, skewing the survey.

 

The survey was about defensive uses, not offensive uses. Do you think a bunch of respondents classified any murders they committed as defensive uses in the survey?

 

My comment was about the ambiguity of telling the difference between offensive/defensive use.
There is something called the castle doctrine...

 

I'm sorry you seem to have such a difficult time with these concepts.

 

No clear argument here.

No evidence to support that claim.

Those two? You're kidding....

 

Arguments that are not well supported and explained are likely to be ignored. Kellermann performed multivariate analysis to isolate the risk due to guns in the home and found an independent relationship between guns in the home and an increased risk of homicide. I don't see how anything in your post refutes that.

 

Very true.

"Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective."
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Most claimed DGUs may not actually be legally justifiable cases of self defense.

 

anything that has David Hemenway's name on it is utter bullshit and worthless propaganda. he is a paid whore of the anti gun movement and well known for his fabrications

 

He found higher risks for living alone and for renting than for a gun in the home. Shall we regulate those for safety?

He took data from three urban areas. He included criminals in possession in the data. That's going to skew the results. Find a study that only looks at the risk to the law abiding. You'd have to be an idiot to think that the risk of having a gun in my house in Norther Colorado was the same as the risk of a drug dealer in Memphis in a crime ridden neighborhood. That's what the Kellermann results state.

 

"Most claimed DGUs may not actually be legally justifiable cases of self defense."

This says nothing.

 

This is so entertaining.

when a poll comes out claiming guns are bad certain people wave the polls over their heads and whine “See I told you guns are bad! We have to do something! Ban guns! For the children!”

when a poll comes out refuting the gun banners, these same people go on and on about polls being unreliable, “they aren’t peer reviewed!”, polls are unscientific, polls don’t accurately reflect peoples opinions.

LOL