Gun owners not likely to use firearms for self-defense, study claims

[SecularMotion]

A new study attempts to debunk the claim that gun owners rely on their firearms for self-defense.

The left-leaning Violence Policy Center released a study Wednesday that finds people are much more likely to use a gun to kill someone without cause than to protect themselves.

According to the study, gun owners committed 259 justifiable homicides compared to 8,342 criminal homicides in 2012, the most recent year data was available.

That means gun owners are 32 times more likely to kill someone without cause than to act in self-defense, the study reasoned.

http://thehill.com/regulation/245280-gun-owners-not-likely-to-use-firearms-for-self-defense-study-claims

[Marengo]

1. The recent CDC report seems to suggest otherwise...

“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 per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “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.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

[liberal N proud]

2. What were last nights killings in Charleston?

[SecularMotion]

3. Criminal Uses Outnumber Self-Defense Uses

The spurious conclusions in these surveys don’t just distort the pro-gun community’s perception of defensive gun use. For example, the claim that millions every year shoot their guns in self-defense has led some to posit that there are more defensive gun uses than criminal uses. This assertion is inexplicable—not backed by any substantive evidence. We have yet to find a single study examining the question that does not show that criminal uses far outweigh defensive uses.

You might hear gun advocates substantiate this claim by comparing inflated survey numbers like Kleck’s with NCVS crime numbers. But defensive gun use surveys and the NCVS use different methodologies. To compare those two data sets is to break one of the most important laws of statistical analysis: You must always compare likes to likes.

And indeed, comparing NCVS results to NCVS results yields a very different picture—that more than 9 times as many people are victimized by guns than protected by them. Respondents in two Harvard surveys had more than 3 times as many offensive gun uses against them as defensive gun uses. Another study focusing on adolescences found 13 times as many offensive gun uses. Yet another study focusing on gun use in the home found that a gun was more than 6 times more likely to be used to intimidate a family member than in a defensive capacity. The evidence is nearly unanimous.

http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-defensive-gun-use-myth/

[BlancheSplanchnik]

20. The only people who don't believe this

(though it seems obvious to me) are gun lovers who act like gun control would entirely deprive them of their hobby.

Gun control discussion, on the legislative level, has not been concerned with depriving them, not as far as I understand, at least.

The legislative concerns are focused on regulations to reduce the number of criminal and unstable owners.

Reasonable reactions to reasonable laws seems to be unacceptable to too many gun fans.

Doesn't make any sense to me.

[GGJohn]

27. CDC doesn't believe it either. eom.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

55. Then why not reply to the other two posters?

I was going by their information. I would think they're more knowledgeable than me. Wouldn't they be the people to bring that up to?

Or did they debunk that already?

[GGJohn]

80. Why would you agree with them if your not too knowledge about the issue? eom.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

82. No switching topics, or answering questions with a question; slippery discussion tactics. eom

[GGJohn]

83. It's a legitmate question. eom.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

84. So was mine, which you sidestepped. n/t

[GGJohn]

86. I'm trying to figure out why you would agree with one side of the issue and not be

knowledgeable about it?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

89. I'm trying to figure out why you're harrassing me. I don't need a PhD to understand an issue

well enough to opine, and I don't need to run some obstacle course of yours to prove anything.

If you're actually interested in the issue, take it up with a statistician. There are plenty of folks here with expertise.

The way you're going after me, you look like you're more interested in intimidation.

Just the kind of guy I like to see brandishing deadly weapons.

[GGJohn]

90. I'm sorry if you think I'm harrassing you, that's not my intent,

I'm truly trying to understand why you would take sides on an issue without knowing very much about it.

[hack89]

4. They conduct a "study" that ignores three out of the four possible outcomes of DGU

Last edited Thu Jun 18, 2015, 08:53 AM - Edit history (1)

Nothing unbiased about that.

[Shamash]

5. Meanwhile, the KKK has a study saying blacks are inferior

The Violence Policy Center is an anti-gun organization. Expecting them to say anything that does not have that bias, whether in "study" form or not is unrealistic. Believing such studies is what we call confirmation bias in the same way you would expect an anti-Semite to consider the Protocols of the Elders of Zion proof of a Jewish conspiracy.

As mentioned by others, the CDC convened a panel of experts to look into firearm violence and they came up with a markedly different conclusion after examining all the data available.

You decide which study is more likely to be accurate.

[ileus]

6. It's true...most are used for family fun at he range, friendly competitions and hunting.

[madokie]

7. This country needs to start revisiting some of these latest loosing of gun laws

I have rights too and I don't want to have to deal with an angry person with a gun in their hand because its legal for them to have it

[Shamash]

8. If some rights are less equal than others, then they are not rights

None of your rights are inherently violated because someone owns a gun any more than if they own a knife. And the recent case of the woman stabbed to death in New Jersey shows that the angry person is the problem, not the means by which they express it.

[madokie]

9. Good day

I ain't gonna listen to this noise.

[Shamash]

12. Translation: I am unable to rebut your statement and am leaving to avoid further embarrassment. n/t

[DamnYankeeInHouston]

19. An angry person without a gun is just an angry person.

An angry person with a gun is a potential murderer.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

21. ^ n/t

[linuxman]

30. Hmm.

I own many guns. Even some of those scary black ones with the big magazines and what have you.

I get angry on occasion. Sometimes I get downright furious.

Never occurred to me to pick up a gun in any of those moments.

Are you concerned you might do something terrible if you had a gun and became angry?

[jeff47]

37. You aren't every gun owner. (nt)

[linuxman]

38. No, I'm just part of this homogeneous group that shares blame for any gun crime.

Did you miss the memo?

99.9 percent of gun owners are in the same boat as me. But hey, we're all just pre-criminals for the time being.

If I went around suggesting that all parents are just a sexual impulse away from fucking their kids, I'd be banned in a heartbeat. Funny that.

[jeff47]

39. When you enable the gun owners who can not handle weapons responsibly

then you are helping to cause the problem.

How would you feel about a law that made you responsible in criminal and civil court for all actions taken with guns you own?
How about a law that required you to carry liability insurance to cover the civil liability?

[linuxman]

40. How am I enabling anyone? I don't buy into shared culpability/group guilt.

To answer your questions:

1. The same as I'd feel about a law allowing for my prosecution in the event a car thief kills a pedestrian with my stolen car.
2. I already have insurance. Last I checked, there is no insurance that covers criminal acts.

[jeff47]

41. Well, are you working to block any efforts to identify people who can not properly handle guns?

Then you're enabling their handling of guns.

1. The same as I'd feel about a law allowing for my prosecution in the event a car thief kills a pedestrian with my stolen car.

Liability would end when you reported the gun stolen.

Why do this? 1) People who actually do acquire guns for felons/other prohibited people would be in trouble. 2) "Oops, I didn't keep the gun secure" would actually have a cost.

2. I already have insurance. Last I checked, there is no insurance that covers criminal acts.

You don't have insurance to cover use of your gun.

For example: Dumbass goes to a gun range. Is being a dumbass, as is their custom. Accidentally fires, damages the building at the gun range. That isn't covered by homeowner's/renter's insurance or auto insurance. It is also not likely to be prosecuted.

[linuxman]

47. What identifies those people? Can you name some things?

Acquiring guns for felons, unauthorized persons is illegal as fuck and always has been.

How secure must I keep my car before I'm responsible for its theft? People can't be held responsible for the acts of a criminal purely because the criminal has your stuff. If I steal a steak knife from crate and barrel and carve up an AA meeting, is the store responsible for failing to properly secure their things? No. That would be ridiculous.

My homeowners policy insures against what you describe. Your example is confusing. Did he shoot the range building? The building across the street? wWhat? In any case, yes, he would be prosecuted if charged, and yes, he would have to pay restitution. We have laws against wanton destruction and endangerment. The issue becomes one of pay-to-play rights. You cannot make someone get insurance to use a firearm anymore than you can charge someone for a voter's registration card. Even if you could, insurance isn't go to pay for a criminal's acts. That's not how insurance works.

[mythology]

54. It's difficult to kill as efficiently with a knife

There's a reason one rarely hears of somebody going on a stabbing spree.

Guns provide the ability to kill higher numbers of people, at range, than a knife does. Additionally, guns are more likely to cause fatal injuries than knives.

[99Forever]

13. Of course we do. But expect the gun nuts to be out in force the next few days...

.. telling us that our right to life and a freedom to a peaceful existence without threat of the murderous brethren doesn't rate compared to their right to strap on instruments of death and go into public to intimidate and kill. They are all bullies. Each and every one of them.

[madokie]

14. Yup done happened

right before you. It used to be there anyway I'm not seeing it anymore though

[Shamash]

18. Let me get this straight

More than 99.9% of gun owners will never be a problem to anyone. But they're the bullies, not the people who want to use coercion on them for something they are blameless of?

Ever heard of "projection"?

People do not need to come out in force to support what they believe in unless someone is threatening it.

[99Forever]

22. Save it for the gun bullies.

The blood is on all of their hands, including your mythical 99.9%. They enable each and every gun death and injury in this nation. Every single one, without exception.

[Shamash]

25. Full of fauxtrage this morning, aren't we?

Do you actually have an argument to go with that bile? Because right now what you are saying is exactly the same as calling every man on Earth a bully for enabling each and every rape that happens, since after all, each of them has a "gun".

Every single one, without exception.

If you want to make the case that angry, logic-free outbursts that blame innocent people are the best way to a) address the situation, b) differentiate your personality from some topically relevant person in South Carolina, and c) get what you believe to be made into law, then by all means d) please continue.

And speaking of bullies, remind me again which one of us wants to use force to coerce the other and which of us is tolerant of other people's beliefs? And looking at your avatar, remind me which candidate voted against holding gun manufacturers liable for gun misuse...twice.

[99Forever]

26. Argument?

How about nine fresh innocent bodies in SC from one of yours?

Proceed.

Tell us all about your precious "freedumbs in 'murica, fuck yeah!!!!!!!!!"

[Shamash]

32. That would be an admission you have no argument, then? Thank you for confirming it.

And "from one of yours", I presume you mean one or more of:

1) Lifelong Democratic voter
2) Same-sex marriage supporter
3) Pro-choice advocate
4) Opponent of the war in Iraq

Because I am all of those things and lots more besides. I would have thought the "one of yours" comment would have been better addressed to angry, profanity-spewing ideologues, but you would not need DU for that, merely a mirror.

[Lizzie Poppet]

35. "The blood is on all of their hands..."

Bullshit. Collective guilt arguments are both fallacious and vacuous.

[Eleanors38]

46. #35: Read it carefully. nt

[99Forever]

53. Nope, I have no interest in gun bully propaganda.

[Shamash]

58. Let me run that through Google Translate...

"Nope, I have no logic, just fear, hate and intolerance."

There, I fixed it for you.

Seriously dude, if some of us are hitting you with what you call "gun bully propaganda" and you cannot provide a rational, liberal rebuttal, then you are as much as admitting that you are not as bright as a "gun bully". So, for the sake of not dragging down the political boat I am in (the liberal one), you really owe it to yourself and the rest of us to be able to defend your beliefs in a public forum. Snark, talking points and the occasional jibe have their place, but they are not a substitute for a sound argument.

If you can't defend what you believe, then at least be smart enough to stay silent and not embarrass the rest of us with nonsense you cannot support.

[Eleanors38]

67. Your expression "gun bully" is revealing...

It is a refinement of "bully" in general, and seems to suggest that many in our society are being bullied on a Lot of issues, since the expression is used so promiscuously. I suggest dropping the term (as it is a signal to the bullies" that they are getting the desired effect), and fighting back instead. I only point out respectfully that the gun-control issue is a pretty poor poor issue to prove your bona fides, and a waste of your passion.

[99Forever]

70. I calls em like I sees em.

I don't have any respect for defenders of murderers.

[Eleanors38]

74. Neither do I. Let me know if you see one post in DU. Thanks.

[friendly_iconoclast]

78. The gun haters are already out in force exploiting tragedy

Per the manuals:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/748675/gun-violencemessaging-guide-pdf-1.pdf

http://www.progressivemajorityaction.org/gun_messaging

https://progressivemajorityaction.nationbuilder.com/assets/pages/64/Voicing_Our_Values-To_Curtail_Gun_Violence.pdf

http://www.progressivemajorityaction.org/sources_for_more_detailed_talking_points

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/141743245/CAP-Memo

From PREVENTING GUN VIOLENCE THROUGH EFFECTIVE MESSAGING

p. 1 Its purpose is to offer clear advice about effective frames and messages across a broad variety of communication opportunities.

p. 10

Our first task is to draw a vivid portrait and make an emotional connection. We should rely on
emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence.
Compelling facts should be used to back up that emotional narrative, not as a substitute for it.

#1:
ALWAYS START WITH THE PAIN AND ANGUISH
THAT GUN VIOLENCE BRINGS INTO PEOPLE’S LIVES.

#2:
MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WEAK AND RECKLESS POLICIES
PUT WEAPONS IN THE HANDS OF DANGEROUS PEOPLE.

#3:
USE IMAGES THAT BRING YOUR MESSAGE HOME.

#3:
WITH BASE AUDIENCES, EMPHASIZE THE
UNIQUELY DESTRUCTIVE ROLE THAT THE NRA PLAYS

#4:
EMPHASIZE THAT EXTRAORDINARILY DANGEROUS, MILITARY-STYLE
WEAPONS ARE NOW WITHIN EASY REACH ACROSS AMERICA.



p. 40
The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents,
including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora, and Oak Creek.
When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts.

The purpose of this section of our guide is to present some advice about how to make sure our communications are powerful, impactful and appropriate to these unique circumstances.

We believe that the following nine guideposts should be helpful both when we encounter high-profile
incidents that attract national attention – and when a similar dynamic occurs in a local community

p. 41 It’s appropriate to open with an expression of concern for the victims and their families.
***
So, we need to use language where our message flows from the expression of concern
into our broader argument.

p.43 But, when talking to broader audiences, we want to make sure we meet them where they are.
That means emphasizing emotion over policy prescriptions, keeping our facts and our case simple
and direct, and avoiding arguments that leave people thinking they don’t know enough
about the topic to weigh in...

[99Forever]

79. Good. May their words keep you awake indefinately.

The gun bullies' rein of terror in this nation MUST end. GUNS ARE the problem, not the solution.

[friendly_iconoclast]

85. Why would the words of the politically ineffectual keep me awake?

[99Forever]

87. They should.

There are only two sides to this, good and evil.

I have zero doubt which side I am on.

[friendly_iconoclast]

88. "There are only two sides to this, good and evil. I have zero doubt on which side I am on"

Straight from "Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging", page 11:

#3:CLAIM MORAL AUTHORITY AND THE MANTLE OF FREEDOM.

The alcohol prohibitionists felt the same way. How's that been going lately?

[99Forever]

92. Seems pretty clear which side you stand on.

Bu bye.

[Lurks Often]

16. You're wrong, the gun laws about who can PURCHASE a firearm haven't changed much

If anything, the Federal laws governing who can purchase a firearm have actually gotten slightly stricter with the addition of domestic violence and restraining orders as dis-qualifiers. Some states have additional dis-qualifiers, so any purchase from a FFL is subject to both Federal law and state law, if state law is stricter.

Here is the form from the ATF with all the dis-qualifiers listed: https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

[former9thward]

60. How many times have you had to deal

"with an angry person with a gun in their hand because its legal for them to have it"?

[romanic]

10. Yeah this study isn't biases or anything.

:/

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. A study that only counts killing the attacker as a DGU is laughably biased. Criminals are also

wounded, held and chased off. Where are the stats for those incidences in this so-called study?

[SecularMotion]

15. Did you even bother to read the study?

It also details, using the best data available on the national level, the total number of times guns are used for self-defense by the victims of both attempted and completed violent crimes and property crimes whether or not the use of the gun by the victim resulted in a fatality.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

[Thor_MN]

17. The same place where the stats are for criminal woundings, criminal holdings and criminal chasing?

The stat cited was on homicides, not other uses of guns. One can't argue that the study was biased when it treats criminal use and defense use in exactly the same way. You are arguing to add wounding, holding and chasing only to defensive use, which would indeed be laughably biased.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

23. I like Secular Motion and Thor's replies to your remark.

They make a lot of sense. Being knowledgeable and having read the details, and all....


Hey, aren't you the person who tried to rip out my throat for having a picture of my little dog wearing a Halloween costume?

Whew, that was some weird, way out of proportion rage explosion....... What else throws you into rages? You keep a gun on you when you're having them?

[LittleBlue]

81. Well spotted.nt

[LanternWaste]

24. "Study, schmudy. If it doesn't validate my biases, the study is flawed." ~ Idiots

"Study, schmudy. If it doesn't validate my biases, the study is flawed." ~ Idiots

[former9thward]

62. I wonder what you would say about studies that show the opposite?

I know, "it was flawed, it was paid for by the gun industry", etc. etc.

[linuxman]

28. I like how it only counts if the gun owner kills someone is self defense.

No points for dissuading an aggressor without bloodshed I see.

Scared off a burglar? Discouraged a bat-wielding, drunken neighbor from caving in your head over his parking space? Sorry, fuck you. Zero points. Gotta kill em', see?

Worthless study.

[Lizzie Poppet]

36. Actually, the study addresses (albeit not well) those defensive usages.

It's an extremely difficult metric to derive reliable data about. The details of such instances, if the incident is reported to authorities at all, are not always explicitly categorized in the available data.

[stonecutter357]

29. K&R!

[Betty Karlson]

31. And 32 times of homicide versus 1 time of self-defense

OBVIOUSLY is not enough to limit the second amendment. Everybody knows our founding fathers dreamt of a land where every Bob and his uncle could mow down strangers with semi-automatic rifles + extra large magazins.

Because guns don't kill people, or something.

Also darkies need to be kept in their place.

And gays should have a bullet in their heads.

What about the children?

---------

And for those who cannot spot sarcasm, that was me being wildly sarcastic.

[Eleanors38]

48. Please be aware that among African Americans, attitudes toward gun ownership are changing...

to a far more positive outlook than in the past.

Rosa Parks and Harriet Tubman, both of whom are being promoted to be on the $20 bill, were armed. You might check up on the Pink Pistols as well.

[Betty Karlson]

93. I'm aware of the trends

And I understand them. But I doubt they will solve anything. Exacerbation seems more likely.

[Eleanors38]

94. Exacerbation is possible, but arming for self-defense is not a systemic social movement....

It is above all immediate self-defense for those attacked. That such self-defense might result in attacks backing off is also possible. I certainly don't want the country to become a social laboratory, but if exacerbation is the result, and attacks continue, then those terrorists will be increasingly above ground and exposed.

There is possibly another dynamic at work. If the kind of attacks we've seen happen again, the terrorists might be emboldened by the lack of resistence. A return to the days of Bombingham would be a reprehensible development. The Deacons for Defense, which operated in Louisiana in the early 60s, is often credited with backing off violent racist attacks (which included Klan-riddled LEOs). Unheard of at the time, and rarely since, one marauding group of racists received return fire fom the Deacons, resulting in the "unofficial death" of one attacker (it seems no one wanted it to get out that a black man killed a white man).

[Snobblevitch]

33. I agree.

Gun owners are not likely to use firearms for self-defense.

[Eleanors38]

50. The CDC disagrees. Repitition makes for Narrative™, but not accuracy and truth.

[Snobblevitch]

52. I believe tbere are about

300 million guns in the U.S. and approximately 80 million gun owners. I am quite sure that only a tiny percentage of those guns and gun owners use their guns to defend themselves or someone else. I am also quite sure only a tiny percentage of those guns are used by their owners to commit crimes.

[Eleanors38]

69. The CDC says at a minimum, guns are used in SD about 300,000X a year, some say over 2 millionx.

To me, it's not the percentages, but a recognition that guns are used many times daily in self-defense.

[Snobblevitch]

73. I stand by my assertion that it is unlikely

that a gun owner will ever need to use a gun in self-defense. Of course it happens, but it is still a statistic that should not be ignored.

[Eleanors38]

75. I agree.

[PowerToThePeople]

34. Ban all guns! n/t

[L0oniX]

42. IBTL ...This belongs in the gungeon.

[Eleanors38]

51. It has been alerted, but you know how that goes.

[DanTex]

43. The whole "self-defense" meme is pretty much a myth.

Not only are guns used for crimes far more often then self-defense, but most "self-defense" uses that are reported by the surveys are things like escalating arguments where the "other guy started it". There's no evidence whatsoever that owning or carrying a gun makes a person safer, all the evidence points in the opposite direction.

And those 259 "self-defense" shootings also include a lot of Trayvon Martin type incidents.

[Shamash]

45. Can we count on your support?

Since you feel that the CDC's findings on the issue of defensive gun use fall into the same level of reliability as "myth", can we expect you have the same opinion of the CDC if they perchance say something you agree with on the subject of gun violence? If not, the dictionary entry for "double standard" does not yet have a picture to go with the definition and one of you might look good there.

[DanTex]

49. This has been examined at length in the peer reviewed literature.

The big lie pushed by the NRA is that a "defensive gun use" reported in surveys like the one you are talking about are truly defensive and socially beneficial acts. Yes, there are a lot of people who claim to have used a gun defensively in the last year. That doesn't resolve the important questions, for example, whether the DGUs were actually "defensive", whether it improved the safety of the person claiming it, and whether the situation wouldn't have turned out better if the person had chosen to respond in a different way.

The answer to these questions is for the most part, no. Outcome based studies, where people look at whether owning or carrying a gun makes someone more or less likely to be harmed, mostly find that guns make people less safe and more vulnerable. Analysis of crime incidents find that people who claimed to have used a gun in self defense are no less likely to be harmed than people who didn't, or who responded by other means (i.e. run away, call the police).

For a stark example, the Trayvon Martin shooting would show up as DGU and a self-defense shooting even though it was anything but. And a lot of them are escalating incidents where both people claim the "other guy started it". And also, a lot of people who use guns to defend themselves are themselves criminals (i.e. one drug dealer defending himself from another).

If you are actually interested in the in-depth research, as opposed to just repeating NRA talking points, the Harvard School of Public Health has some good citations as a starting point.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

[Shamash]

56. A not-very-deft dodging of the question

1) What I was talking about was not pushed by the NRA and is not an NRA talking point. That's an amazingly amateurish attempt to reframe the subject.

2) It was not a survey. President Obama commissioned the CDC to do a study on the subject and report on it. You really ought to read it sometime. The part on defensive gun use is only a page or two and the report is something like 150 pages long.

3) The study analyzed the issue, including using peer-reviewed literature on the subject ranging from those claiming very small amounts of defensive gun use and very high amounts, and the outside experts on the subject of firearm violence chosen by the CDC for just this study based their report on their own expertise and analysis of the available data.

The CDC report pretty much contradicts everything you've said today about defensive gun use. The big question is whether you are smart enough to see the corner you've painted yourself into by claiming that your personal opinion of the subject is more reliable than that of an Obama-commissioned CDC report on the causes and prevention of firearm violence, headed by a multi-disciplinary panel of experts chosen for just this purpose. And FYI, the bibliography for the study has twelve references to David Hemenway's papers (the guy who is in every reference in your previous link). So, the CDC looked at his work and still came to conclusions that disagree with yours.

Hint: This is where a smart person would stop painting. It is where a smarter person would tell themselves that maybe they were wrong, go read the report and afterwards have a more open mind on that particular aspect of the subject.

[DanTex]

57. You are the one who is dodging.

Like I said, this has been studied extensively, something that internet gun nuts don't seem to understand. The CDC report did come up with an estimated range for the number of DGUs, which was based on the various surveys performed on the topic. The CDC did not find that:
1) carrying or owning a gun actually makes a person safer
2) that the reported DGUs are all actually "defensive" and the person claiming them actually had a better outcome than they would have had if they had done something else besides use a gun in self defense
3) that the net effect on society, when taking into account both DGUs and criminal gun uses is beneficial

The NRA selectively picks certain parts of the report, and you come here and repeat what the NRA told you. And that's why you need to dodge the points that I bring up. Because the NRA didn't tell you about them, and so you don't have an answer.

[Shamash]

59. What planet are you posting this from?

Why don't you post the relevant text from the CDC report that was issued on Bizarro Earth and we can compare it to the one issued on the Earth where I live. Because the report issued in this world seems to say the opposite of what yours are saying and I think the readers should have a chance to see the actual text compared to your claims 1) through 3) above and of course your opening statement:

The whole "self-defense" meme is pretty much a myth. Not only are guns used for crimes far more often then self-defense, but most "self-defense" uses that are reported by the surveys are things like escalating arguments where the "other guy started it". There's no evidence whatsoever that owning or carrying a gun makes a person safer, all the evidence points in the opposite direction.

So, how about it? I have the confidence in my interpretation of that report. Do you have enough confidence to post the actual text right next to your statements on the issue so that everyone can see for themselves who is hewing closer to reality?

Now, my question was whether you considered this CDC report "myth" in terms of its accuracy. You have yet to respond to that simple question. And it will be an interesting answer if you get around to giving it, considering that the CDC's conclusion's on defensive gun use were based partially on a specific paper by the author you referenced in your link for "in-depth research".

We can address anything you think I am "dodging" once you answer that.

[DanTex]

61. I'm posting from outside the NRA bubble. That's why it feels so foreign to you.

If you really want to post the part of the CDC report that concludes that owning or carrying a gun results is net benefit rather than risk, please, be my guest.

Or the part where they say that the evidence shows that using a gun defensively is superior to other countermeasures.

Or the part where the overall benefit to society from DGUs is greater than the overall harms from gun violence.

Here, if you want, I'll post the section that makes all of these claims:

Oh wait, it doesn't exist.

[Shamash]

63. Since you insist

For those interested in learning more and to make sure everyone has the full context available, the report is here. Quotes from pages 15 and 16 of the report follow, interspersed for schadenfreude purposes with DanTex's statements. Go back and read the comment this one is a reply to and decide who is full of it, and what the "it" is that they are full of.

CDC
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). 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).

DanTex
The whole "self-defense" meme is pretty much a myth. Not only are guns used for crimes far more often then self-defense but most "self-defense" uses that are reported by the surveys are things like escalating arguments where the "other guy started it".

CDC
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.

DanTex
There's no evidence whatsoever that owning or carrying a gun makes a person safer, all the evidence points in the opposite direction.

The CDC did not find that the reported DGUs are all actually "defensive" and the person claiming them actually had a better outcome than they would have had if they had done something else besides use a gun in self defense.

For bonus head-up-in-a-dark-place points, here is a DanTex approved piece of "in-depth research" on the subject, from his link here:

Cook, Philip J; Ludwig, Jens; Hemenway, David. The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1997; 16:463-469.

Here is a link to that exact reference used by the CDC in their study...as relevant to their conclusions on defensive gun use.

[DanTex]

64. Thank you. Exactly as I said. Although the NRA would be proud of your selected excerpting.

The CDC quotes some rough estimates of DGUs and doesn't address any of the points that I made. I already agreed that "survey estimates indicate" that DGUs are as common as criminal uses. The point I was making is that DGU estimates from survey estimates are mostly useless: these are simply people telling pollsters they used a gun in self-defense, with absolutely no hard verification whatsoever. They don't verify whether the DGUs actually happened, or whether they were actually "defensive" (see George Zimmerman). Here is one of the studies that does just that, finding that large numbers survey-reported DGUs are both illegal and harmful acts:
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.full

To the second point I made, whether the supposed benefit from DGUs is great enough to balance out the harm from gun violence, the CDC also says nothing. Gun homicides result in someone being killed. DGUs rarely if ever end up saving a life. In fact, as shown in the paragraph from the CDC that you conveniently decided to omit, there isn't even evidence that if you add up all the benefits and harms to gun owners themselves, you get a net benefit. In other words, we know that guns harm the public at large: 10,000 gun homicides a year, and far more non-lethal shootings, ravaging neighborhoods, etc. And in the other column, the "benefits", we can't even determine if there's a plus or a minus sign. And, yes, that's according to the CDC.

The third point I made was also 100% accurate. The CDC did not find that owning or carrying a gun makes a person safer. It cited studies (and the evidence on this is mixed, the CDC for some reason only cited the Kleck studies that the majority of the firearms research community rejects) that said that people who resist with a gun are less likely to be injured. But, regardless, since studies have also found that carrying or owning a gun makes a person more likely to end up being shot in the first place (often by the very gun they own), the net effect of carrying or owning a gun is a best neutral, and most likely negative. In fact, hilariously, the very paragraph after the one you quote makes this very point.

Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.

So, another mark in my column. There is no evidence that owning or carrying a gun is a net benefit. How did the NRA convince you not to read this paragraph? It's right there after the other ones you cited! Is their mind control really that powerful?


The CDC wrote a total of three paragraphs on DGUs, so it is logical that they didn't cover the entire gamut of research. I don't blame them for this, it is a tiny and inconsequential part of the overall gun debate. But there is a lot more literature out there than those three paragraphs, and I encourage you to look into it, starting with that Harvard Public Health link I posted.

[Shamash]

66. So, is the CDC report myth or not?

Your selective interpretation is both amusing and pathetic at the same time. Especially the part where you call me out for "selective excerpting" after I provide a link to the exact page referenced for the stated purpose of allowing readers to get the full context. I would like to give DanTex a shoutout for taking the time to pay attention to details like this when he is busy self-immolating.

And the bit where he says "survey estimates are mostly useless" and then two sentences later insists that we accept survey-based data about defensive gun use? DanTex is wasted on us Democrats. He is clearly cut out to be a speechwriter for whoever stumbles out of the Republican clown car for 2016.

Fun fact: The author who has been cited in all of DanTex's links so far for gun control matters is an...economist.

However, I have to dock DanTex points for the NRA-based smears. That's just an intellectually lazy ad hominem.

And speaking of calling a mention of this study an NRA talking point...if this study is everything you say it says and nothing I say it says, why is it that I cannot find a single mention of it at either the Violence Policy Center, Mayors Against Illegal Guns or the Harvard School of Public Health:

No results found for "research to reduce the threat" site:vpc.org.
No results found for "CDC report" firearms site:vpc.org, 1 result (but it was not about this report)

No results found for "research to reduce the threat" site:everytown.org.
No results found for "CDC report" firearms site:everytown.org

No results found for "research to reduce the threat" site:hsph.harvard.edu.
No results found for "CDC report" firearms site:hsph.harvard.edu.
(to be fair, it is possible that it might be mentioned somewhere on these sites, but not in a way you can easily find, as I did more searches than just the ones above)

You would think that if this Obama-commissioned CDC report on firearm violence was everything and a bag of chips to support your viewpoint, that at least one of these institutions would have a mention of it somewhere?

Now, since it is clear that you are not in the business of answering relevant questions, I'll just throw this one out for the readers:

If the CDC's consensus after examining all the peer-reviewed research and having access to every bit of data at the CDC's disposal was that defensive gun use was less common than criminal gun use and that the average outcome for defensive gun use was worse than for not using a gun, don't you think that is what they would have said?

But they didn't say that, they said the opposite. The takeaway is that every last word DanTex has said on the subject is spin and deflection to get away from that point. Especially since the bibliography in the back of the report shows the CDC references the authors DanTex recommends at least 20 times as their sources before coming up with their conclusions.

[DanTex]

68. The CDC report includes a three paragraph summary of the DGU literature.

It's a decent summary, but there is plenty more research out there, and it certainly misses a lot of relevant citations. But that's to be expected when you try to summarize the whole thing in such a small place.

The major thing I'd take issue with is the over-emphasis on Kleck's research, but even with that, it covers some of the main points. My guess is that the Kleck stuff was due to political pressure from the right -- Kleck, along with John Lott, are like the "global warming deniers" of the gun research world, they do shoddy research that tell the right what it wants to hear. The GOP and NRA have a long history of meddling with the CDC when it comes to gun research, to the point of actually preventing them from funding it for a long time.

And yet, despite that, those three paragraphs support all of the points that I have been making this entire time. Most importantly, there is no evidence to conclude that owning or carrying a gun is a net benefit, because whatever defensive benefits that may exist must be balanced against the increased risks that accompany gun ownership.

Now, there's a lot more research on DGUs out there, which obviously you are not familiar with. I tried to help you out by pointing to some of the peer reviewed studies, but you don't seem interested in this. Instead you not-so-cleverly tried to selectively excerpt the CDC report so as to not show the paragraph that supported one of the exact points that I've been making this entire time.

As far as survey estimates, yes, they yield numbers, but these numbers are mostly useless for the reasons I pointed out. They try to count the total number of DGUs, but they (obviously) can't verify what actually happened during those DGUs. Whether they are really "defensive", whether a serious crime was actually prevented, or even whether they even actually happened. Everyone except for you understands this. The survey takers just have to trust what the person on the phone said. And, studies like the one that I linked to that actually examine the content of DGUs find that a significant portion of them are illegal and harmful acts.

Anyway, it seems like you're lost in an ad-hominem name calling frenzy. If you want to move beyond the three paragraphs of the CDC study and into the actual literature, that would be a good step forward for your understanding of this issue. But I doubt you are going to do it because it's not going to support your conclusions.

[Initech]

44. They needed a study for this?

[olddots]

65. unfortunately the country is the Gungeon .

[Eleanors38]

71. I disagree, but that is a good turn of phrase.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

72. Give it up. With 3D printers making guns, they are unregulatable.

It doesn't matter what you or the government thinks, when a gun can be produced at the push of a button, your not going to stop them.

Next topic.

[HassleCat]

76. The trouble with studies

The pro and anti gun people battle back and forth with their studies all the time. The NRA people have some study they trumped up that says gun owners use their weapons to prevent crimes on a regular basis, like a thousand times a day. We have so many guns, and so much crime, there is just no way to know. If you look at gun deaths, and stick to comparing apples with apples, it looks like there is a very, very small chance you will use a firearm to defend yourself against criminal violence. There is a slightly higher chance you will use your gun to accidentally kill a friend or family member.

[Shamash]

77. I agree

While I am pro-gun, when I look for sources of information I try to find ones that come from neither side of the bias divide, though as a reader of this thread might note, some people think that any person or any source of information that is not from their side of that divide is biased, much like some Tea Partiers think that anyone not as conservative as they are is "a liberal" or some anti-gun DU'ers think that socialist, NRA F-rated Bernie Sanders is in the pocket of the gun lobby because he is not as anti-gun as they are.

But the last two sentences struck me as the most relevant. There is a very small chance (thankfully) that any of us will have to deal with criminal violence, and among those people, only a minority of them have a chance to use a firearm or any weapon to defend themselves. Violent criminals are not known for playing fair, after all.

But shouldn't the choice of how to respond in that situation be an individual choice? And isn't allowing individual choice the liberal way to approach the issue? Isn't that the way we approach same sex marriage, end of life decisions, reproductive freedom and so on? You can't even say that these other topics are unlikely to kill someone if we are discussing assisted suicide as an individual choice.

No one says "motorcycles are involved in a lot more fatal accidents than cars, so no one should be allowed to have one." or "no one ‘needs’ a car that can go twice the speed limit, so no one should be allowed to have one." No, we have laws and regulations regarding training and safety, and we have legal measures against those who use these things recklessly (or rarely, criminally), but we give the individual the choice. Even if that choice makes it several times more likely to leave behind a grieving family, we do not collectively demand that this choice be taken away from them in the name of "public safety". You're not going to find many "gun absolutists" here at DU, and if you poke one and ask via DU mail how they feel about laws and regulation and training and such you will probably find they are not frothy NRA members, right-wing trolls or Ted Nugent wanna-bes (re-read the first paragraph to see why they are treated this way).

People who take guns seriously (which should be all of them, but...) are fully aware that there is an increased risk of accident because they have a gun in the home, and they accept that risk. And it should be their choice (specifically, a choice by the adults in the household) to accept that risk as much as it is their choice to buy a motorcycle or take up skydiving or be a logger or a fisherman (the death rate for simply working in those latter two industries is over 30 times as high as the firearm murder rate in the US).

[X_Digger]

91. Cannot one defend themselves without killing another?

Funny, that seems to be missing from these stats.