In fact it’s the opposite. A firearm is far more likely to be involved in an accidental injury or death of someone in the household than it is going to be used in any form of self defense.
If you want to effectively protect yourself, invest in actual home security measures.
So rest assured that any firearm you purchase for self defense is always going to be a huge waste of money.
If you want to effectively protect yourself, invest in actual home security measures.
I already have cameras up around my home, and locks on doors and windows (plus CO and Smoke detectors, because that shit probably kills too). I’m more worried about idealogical/theological fanatics in the near future than I am about a potential robber or serial killer.
No …no it doesn’t. These studies are stupid levels of flawed. Not all crimes are reported to the police where nothing happened. Most DGUs no shot is fired, but they don’t get counted because they’re not reported.
The studies that try and show that a gun in the home is more dangerous use suicide statistics as well, which is like saying you’re more likely to drown in a pool if you own one…which the answer is “no shit”.
No it is not. Even the one you linked is from a poll. The CDC pulled the original numbers for DGUs because they’re basically impossible to obtain properly and the CDC didn’t like that it didn’t paint guns in a bad light
Here is the study that was requested by the cdc and by Obama…
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18319.
This part talks about the study you directly linked, which states that respondents were not ansed specifically about defensive gun use.
On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18319.
So no, it’s not, it’s also lacking heavily in studies…and as I said why one of reasons the CDC pulled the numbers.
Well, good news, a firearm would achieve the exact opposite of protecting you and your loved one from harm.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25910555/
In fact it’s the opposite. A firearm is far more likely to be involved in an accidental injury or death of someone in the household than it is going to be used in any form of self defense.
If you want to effectively protect yourself, invest in actual home security measures.
So rest assured that any firearm you purchase for self defense is always going to be a huge waste of money.
I already have cameras up around my home, and locks on doors and windows (plus CO and Smoke detectors, because that shit probably kills too). I’m more worried about idealogical/theological fanatics in the near future than I am about a potential robber or serial killer.
When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
I mean, that’s what the battleaxe by my bed is for.
Is a funny sentence but doesn’t really apply here.
No …no it doesn’t. These studies are stupid levels of flawed. Not all crimes are reported to the police where nothing happened. Most DGUs no shot is fired, but they don’t get counted because they’re not reported.
The studies that try and show that a gun in the home is more dangerous use suicide statistics as well, which is like saying you’re more likely to drown in a pool if you own one…which the answer is “no shit”.
Yes it does, there’s many studies across all the USA. It’s one of the most studied thing ever.
No it is not. Even the one you linked is from a poll. The CDC pulled the original numbers for DGUs because they’re basically impossible to obtain properly and the CDC didn’t like that it didn’t paint guns in a bad light
Here is the study that was requested by the cdc and by Obama…
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3#15
This part talks about the study you directly linked, which states that respondents were not ansed specifically about defensive gun use.
So no, it’s not, it’s also lacking heavily in studies…and as I said why one of reasons the CDC pulled the numbers.
TL;DR
Ammosexuals will write down novels trying to justify their urge to gun down people.
Way to ignore the data kid.
lol
lmao, even