How do you logically justify owning a gun for self defense?

what is glaringly obvious to most of us, is the facade and pretext he throws up in terms of pretending its about public safety and NOT about harassing gun owners because we mainly don't buy into his political agenda

 

I'm calling bull on this claim.

 

You ought to look up non-sequitur. You made a claim not supported by the results of a study you cited.

The data you seek is irrelevant nonsense.

 

Do you think I care? most of those studies were based on that fraudulent evidence. In one study 430 or so out of 434 "homes with a gun" involved cases where the home owners did not own the gun that was used in the reported incident. If I own 200 guns and someone breaks into my home and shoots me, is it legitimate to count my guns? of course not. but the bannerrhoid researchers did that. and most of the cases, the gun that caused the "problem" was not IN THE HOME before the incident happened.

its funny that you quote Stevens DISSENT (that means he LOST) in Heller without quoting his real idiocy-that being his claim that "HE COULD NOT IMAGINE a government without the power to ban guns so he ASSumed the federal government must have that power

your logic is of the same level as Stevens. in other words, bankrupt on this issue

 

cite the inclusion criteria for the study

 

You're the one making a claim not supported by the study since you have not shown that gun owners don't have access to the guns they keep for self defense.

 

what individual studies composed the meta analysis ?
What were their inclusion criteria, endpoints, statistical methods, conclusions ?
Thanks.

 

http://annals.org/aim/article/18144...timization-among-household-members-systematic

 

Wrong again.

From obama's executive order CDC research “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” page 16:

"Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies"

 

You're misinterpreting the statistics. The injury rate after using using a gun in self defense did not go down:

"Later versions of the NCVS provide a way to resolve the issue. They ask questions to find out whether the injury occured before or after the self-protective actions....

"Over all means of self-protection against robbers, 34% were injured before they did anything and 7% after. For gun defenders, 13% were injured before they used the gun, and 8% after. The results seem quite clear: gun defence does nothing to reduce your chances of injury, but injury prevents victims from using guns for defence."
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2002/02/20/dgu-00056/

 

Read the comments in your link - the comments ask good questions critical of the article, and the article author was unable to answer most of them.

And there is a great big hole in your argument and the article you quote from: 34% of people were injured before doing any self-defense activity, but only "13% were injured before
they used the gun". Having a gun cuts your risk of injury by a criminal to 1/3 that of a person without a gun - Obviously a gun makes a big difference.

And by the way, if you do some reading of Tim Lambert's blog (the guy you link and quote) you will find he is a rabid anti-gunner. And in typical gun banner fashion, he misses the huge hole in his article you quoted.

 

Sometimes the Left claims police officers shoot minorities at an astonishing rate, other times, they claim only police officers should have guns, even though they lose them constantly.

Officers across the Bay Area and state are losing firearms at an astonishing rate — and the consequences can be deadly
By Thomas Peele
tpeele@bayareanewsgroup.com
PUBLISHED JUNE 26, 2016
N
ine-hundred and forty-four guns.

From Glocks, Sig Sauers and Remingtons to sniper and assault rifles, some equipped with grenade launchers.

Related stories
June 28: San Francisco deputy's missing gun found during murder investigation
They used to belong to law enforcement officers across California, but a new Bay Area News Group investigation found hundreds of police-issued weapons have been either stolen, lost or can’t be accounted for since 2010, often disappearing onto the streets without a trace.

A federal ranger's stolen gun was used in the high-profile killing of Kate Steinle as she walked with her father on a San Francisco pier. Despite the attention, a year later guns are still being stolen from law enforcement officers' vehicles.

Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez is charged in Steinle's killing. He says he found the gun that was stolen from a Bureau of Land Management agent's vehicle.

A year after a bullet from a federal agent’s stolen gun killed 32-year-old Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier, this news organization surveyed more than 240 local, state and federal law enforcement agencies and discovered an alarming disregard for the way many officers — from police chiefs to cadets to FBI agents — safeguard their weapons.

Their guns have been stolen from behind car seats and glove boxes, swiped from gym bags, dresser drawers and under beds. They have been left on tailgates, car roofs and even atop a toilet paper dispenser in a car dealership’s bathroom. One officer forgot a high-powered assault rifle in the trunk of a taxi.

The tally includes Colts, Rugers, Smith & Wessons, a Derringer, a .44-caliber Dirty Harry hand cannon and a small snub-nosed revolver called a “Detective Special.”

In all, since 2010, at least 944 guns have disappeared from police in the Bay Area and state and federal agents across California — an average of one almost every other day — and fewer than 20 percent have been recovered.

And if you don't think you should have one then no one should have one, even though the right to own and carry is the second amendment in the Bill of Rights?

What other rights do you object to? Are you okay with women voting?

http://extras.mercurynews.com/policeguns/

 

That makes no sense at all. The reduction in the risk of injury came before any defensive gun use. Guns are not time machines. They can't go back in time and prevent injuries. The only explanation that makes sense is Tim's- injured people were less likely to be able to use their guns in self defense.

 

Think about it. The claim is that before taking any type of defensive action, before the victim resists or flees or co-operates with the criminal, before the victim discloses his/her possession of a firearm, really before the victim is even aware a crime is going to take place:
- A person who does not have a gun gets injured 34% of the time.
- A person who has a gun gets injured 13% of the time.

And remember that the risk of injury after the victim takes action is basically equal - having a gun (according to the article) makes no difference at that point. So all the difference in outcome is determined by whether the victim has a gun before he/she takes any action at all.

Somehow simply having a hidden gun which the criminal is unaware of makes a huge difference in the outcome (its before the victim takes any defensive action including drawing or presenting a firearm, the criminal does not know the victim has a gun).

Is it magic? No. Obviously there is a major flaw in the articles assumptions.

 

Cat got yer tongue?

 

Too intellectually lazy to do a little reading?

 

You're still not getting it. You're confusing cause and effect. Less injury preceded more defensive gun use. Defensive gun use did not result in less injury.

 

Citing four separate studies between 1988-2004, the assessment from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council says crime victims who use guns in self-defense have consistently lower injury rates than victims who use other strategies to protect themselves (other strategies include stalling, calling the police or using weapons such as knives or baseball bats).

Thanks for trying to save us from ourselves, but we are adults that understand the risks and we freely have made the decision to exercise our 2A rights. Accept it.

 

You didn't read it, did you?

 

The stats about chances of being murdered are basically due to the drug business. There have been no studies done of the safety of legally obtained and owned guns versus illegally obtained and owned guns.

I've lived with a gun in my home for over 51 years. There is no increased risk for me to own a gun over not owning one. I live in hurricane country. During the days just after Hurricane Ivan, I could hear the looters running through my neighborhood. That is why I need a gun for home defense. If you don't want one, don't get one. Just don't interfere with my rights.

 

The above study tries to add suicide to the mix. Why? There are about three times as many suicides as homicides, and IMHO, they are trying to inflate stats to make a point, not to illustrate the truth. My knowledge of science and setting up studies, is that you want to reduce the amount of variables, not increase them by adding two very different causes of something. Scientists can easily use science/statistics to lie. That's why there's the old saying, "There are three types of lies: Lies, damned lies and statistics."

Suicide is not a gun issue. Japan has a higher suicide rate than our combined suicide/homicide rate, yet guns are almost impossible to obtain.

 

Well, they started out with over 70 studies. Sounds like they rejected the ones that didn't make their point.....

 

I made no claims, I, and others, have simply explained to you the study you cited. Once again, my statement is not only supported by the study, it was its entire focus.

We've also answered fully, and in no uncertain terms, your original question.

Sorry you are having trouble with that math.

.

 

I "logically" own guns cuz when the dictater Trump's gubmint jackboots come callin I be ready.

 

It doesn't

/thread