Guns Are Rarely Used For Self Defense
BY Herschel Smith
8 years, 7 months ago
Forget the numerous accounts from media reports you read every month in American Rifleman about people who use gun for self defense. They just make all of that up. No, guns are rarely used for self defense.
Personal safety is one of the most-cited reasons to buy a gun. But a new study challenges the assumption that firearms are often used for self defense.
The Violence Policy Center found that a very small proportion of firearm homicides can be attributed to so-called justifiable situations. Just one gun death per every 32 criminal gun killings happened in self-defense scenarios in 2012, the most recent year for which data is available. And, while gun advocates argue that they want a firearm handy in their house in case of an intruder, just 0.1 percent of the justified attacks involved property crimes.
“The [National Rifle Association] has staked its entire agenda on the claim that guns are necessary for self-defense, but this gun industry propaganda has no basis in fact,” Josh Sugarmann, the executive director of VPC, which conducted the review, said in a statement. “Guns are far more likely to be used in a homicide than in a justifiable homicide by a private citizen. In fact, a gun is far more likely to be stolen than used in self-defense.”
In other news, between the years 1992 and 2002, 26 women students were sexually assaulted and were able to end the assault when she deployed her gun.
But concerning Josh Sugarmann’s position that guns aren’t necessary for self defense, he doesn’t really believe that. He has never argued for disarming the police.
|
|
On April 25, 2016 at 5:55 am, Lina Inverse said:
This sounds like more of the Kellerman style nonsense where they only score as successful self-defense cases ones that result in the death of the perpetrator. Also paints our objective in using guns in self-defense as killing, which it cannot morally or legally be.
On April 26, 2016 at 2:36 pm, Pat Hines said:
Garden Wintemute, of U. Cal. Davis; ran or may still run a so-called research project wherein he ran to any crime scene wherein a death occurred. He ignored any reported “non-lethal” self defense with a firearm. He then reported his cherry-picked numbers as having a basis in science.
Wintemute’s qualifications? An emergency room MD. As an Operating Room nurse I can tell you that in the world of medicine, the only MD lower in the pecking order than an ER doctor is a psychiatrist.
On April 25, 2016 at 6:41 am, Danny Ray said:
I find it amazing that the people who say if one life is saved it is worth it don’t want to save that one live with a gun
On April 25, 2016 at 6:50 am, Lina Inverse said:
“Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.” — L. Neil Smith
On April 25, 2016 at 1:36 pm, Jack Crabb said:
Exactly, the liberal siren-call “If one life is saved…” just doesn’t count when it comes to the evil gun.
Yet more libturd logic…
On April 25, 2016 at 9:07 am, Backwoods Engineer said:
How do we fight this? The media feeds the VPC by giving it attention, and the VPC feeds the media the scientific-sounding bullcrap it desperately seeks to provide the tyrants an excuse to take our guns. Until we are willing to use our arms in self-defense against the government and the media (don’t see that happening anytime soon), are just to sit by while our rights are taken away, one Josh Sugarman quote at a time?
On April 25, 2016 at 9:58 am, Fred said:
Sir, This is what I do;
1. Find young, first time and new shooters. Make sure they have a good time at the range. Explain how hitler/mao/stalin/etc took the guns and killed millions. Offer to help them learn more about shooting and self defense. Rinse, repeat.
2. Make sure reps at all levels know that control/confiscation will not be tolerated. I’m not afraid to engage my sheriff, local, state and fed reps. I tell them exactly where I stand. Rinse, repeat.
3. Track, forward and reply to important legislative activities. (see step 2)
4. I personally do not engage the enemy directly. They are illegitimate. I stay on offense, always.
When the shooting starts I will know that I have done what I can to prevent killing and that my conscience is clear in the use of deadly force before a Holy and just God.
On April 25, 2016 at 10:03 am, Lina Inverse said:
At the Federal level nothing’s happening. At the local level, things are getting worse in Blue states, aided by Bloomberg’s money, Colorado got wacked really badly, Washington state was the first of a campaign to extinguish US gun culture by criminalizing the normal methods used to create new gun owners, loaning them weapons for practice sessions. As I recall, this will get a big test in Arizona this year.
But in Red and Purple states, things are in general getting better. 2 states just went Constitutional Carry, resulting in a total of 10 states holding 7.2% of the population, others may follow this year, and in these and other states the gun grabbers are on the defense, having to fight our proposals like Constitutional Carry.
I just don’t see our gun rights being taken away, unless, of course, you’re living in a Blue state. For example, California is not a good place to be, and looking to be much less in the future. But if you’re in one of the 43 states that have shall issue or better, holding 72.6% of the population, you might say we “believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free”, but we’re some distance from this issue requiring us to use our arms.
On April 25, 2016 at 10:42 am, Herschel Smith said:
Well, perhaps, but I think the issue of gun ownership and carry isn’t the only issue that will ultimately require our separation and dissolution of the union. There are many, many issues of which there are such divergent viewpoints, lifestyles and world views that the government [of course] cannot endure. Peaceable secession is the only viable solution going forward. What could possibly be the objection to such a great idea?
On April 26, 2016 at 2:32 pm, Phil Ossiferz Stone said:
Me and my rifle object.
We need to reboot our sorry sick Republic, not destroy it. The various parts would be forever locked in a series of Cold Wars with each other that would occasionally turn hot, and would themselves prove easy prey for outside powers. We would ‘reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war,’ as Sherman put it.
We had this discussion already. Once is enough.
On April 26, 2016 at 2:58 pm, Herschel Smith said:
But you and your rifle may not have a say in the matter. Besides, the country is too big to govern, too diverse, too different. It makes perfect sense to allow New York, which is accustomed to allowing corrupt bureaucrats to lord it over them and tell them whether they can have guns, etc., to live peaceably separated from say, South Carolina, where the notion that bureaucrats taking guns is likely to cause night letters, shootings, and even open rebellion. Guns are only a single example, there are many more that I could mention.
On April 26, 2016 at 2:48 pm, Mack said:
Herschel,
As I expected, the count is only regarding deaths. That is not an accurate measure of DGU in America.
I invite you to read and perhaps comment on this recent in-depth interview with Dr. Gary Kleck:
http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/11/criminologist-gary-kleck-on-guns-crime-and-their-study/