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

You did not read the article.

It said that before any action was taken by the victim, a person with a gun was injured by the criminal 13% of the time, a person without a gun 34% of the time.

You are standing on a street corner, a criminal is behind you ready to rob you but has not taken action yet. If you have a gun in your pocket at that moment, your chance of injury is 13%. If you do not have a gun in your pocket, your chance of injury is 34%. That's what the article claims. Its that simple.

And its obviously a severely flawed arguement. Guns are not magic.

 

The logic is simple. It is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. So there is no need to justify a right. Should a person also have to explain or justify their right to free speech or religion.

 

You falsely claimed that the study did not examine the relationship between gun ownership and the increased risk of being a victim of homicide/suicide.

 

I did read the study- probably much more thoroughly than anyone here given the false claims people keep making about it.

 

The obvious explanation is that some people in the injured group were too severely injured to be able to use a gun in self defense. Injuries caused a lower rate of defensive gun use.

 

what is really funny is if you read expert Massad Akoob's book called "THE TRUTH ABOUT SELF DEFENSE" he notes that the people who deal the most with criminals

Judges
Police officers
Probation officers
Prosecutors
Criminal defense attorneys
support personnel for battered women and child victims
Those who work for Judges, Police officers, DAs, probation officers and Criminal Defense attorneys
AND OTHER CRIMINALS

are far more likely to have firearms for self defense and carry them when they can
and why is that--because people like them and people like Me (five years a local prosecutor-24 years a federal one) understand criminals far more than most people and that is why we are far more likely to be armed
why is that

 

Lawyers also commit suicide at a high rate. So if what you say is true then that further confirms a link between suicide and guns.

 

that's irrelevant to what I posted. Suicide has no relevance in your desire to disarm other people. its not a public safety issue

 

And the individual studies that composed this meta analysis?

 

Obvious speculation?

 

" Firearm accessibility was determined by survey interviews in most studies; misclassification of accessibility may have occurred."

Two questions: one, how did they survey the suicide and homicide victims to determine their level of accessibility, and two, given that 85% of the population live in states without waiting periods, shouldn't everyone in those states of legal age be considered to have easy accessibility to guns?

 

there is easy accessibility to guns even in areas like chicago before McDonald.

those studies are nothing more than anti gun zealots working backward to justify their hatred of gun ownership

 

We know that the 22k people who killed themselves with a gun had access to a gun. We know that the other 22k people who killed themselves regardless of access, chose to use something other than a gun. We know that 80 million with a gun in their house didn't kill themselves with a gun. We know that the 210 million adults who live in states without waiting periods didn't kill themselves with a gun.

 

we also know that all this nonsense about suicides and gun accessibility is a facade the BM throws out to serve as a pretext for what their real motivations are for wanting to ban guns

 

You need to express your ideas in a more lucid or coherent fashion as you make little sense, one is not a victim of suicide, a person commits suicide, or is a crime victim.

 

Wrong. That is the wild claim to explain the data in a way that supports gun control.

The risk of injury after the victim took action was equal for armed victims and unarmed victims (about 8%). The risk of injury before the victim takes action varies significantly based on whether the victim is armed or not.

You are standing on a street corner. A criminal is behind you. If you have a gun in your pocket, there is a 13% that you get smacked in the head. If you are unarmed, there is a 34% chance of getting smacked in the head. That's what the article claims. The article is rubbish.

 

The premise that merely owning a Firearm makes it's owner more like to be murdered is absolute twaddle and Rubbish.

 

How can you logically justify that?

That would be a great point if there were any facts backing it, which there isn't.

 

Prove that it increases murder.

 

They may as well claim Firearms can increase obesity in obese people.

 

Actually, you'll get more training as a civilian seeking classes than police practicing for their annual qualification. A quick google search will give probably a dozen tactical shooting classes within a fifty mile radius of your area. Police for the most part go to the range when requalifying is nearing.

Do you know how many cops are killed by their own guns?

 

I haven't read the other responses, but if this hasn't been mentioned, it is my reasons.

1) I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop

2) I have an equal chance of being killed in an automobile accident as I do for having a firearm. So, if we buy your logic, everybody should avoid automobiles and not take the chance

3) There are a little over 30,000 firearms deaths per year weighed against a population of over 300 million and an equal number of firearms in the U.S. Honestly calculated, the risk of being killed by a firearm is less than 1 percent

4) Finally no statistics can be compiled on how many times the presence of a weapon deters a criminal or a murderer and when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

 

So you're just going to bury your head in the sand and pretend the evidence already provided in this thread doesn't exist. Okay, whatever.

 

Maybe.
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep18299

 

Because the statistics have not been proven in a scientific manner, that can yield the same results in a consistently repeatable fashion. At best it is nothing more than a hypothesis, but it is unproven. There is simply no evidence that the mere presence of a firearm, especially a firearm that is legally concealed, increases the statistical possibility of someone being murdered, as opposed to what they would be at risk of should they have no firearm whatsoever.

Beyond such, precisely how much of an increase in percentage is even being discussed? Is it one percent? Five Percent? Ten percent? One hundred percent?