Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control & RKBA

In reply to the discussion: Trayvon in Tulsa? [View all]

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
42. Umm... not quite.
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 03:14 PM
Apr 2012

The evidence you cite, flawed as it is, only claims to show that if you are a victim of a crime, and if you are able to use your gun to defend yourself, then you are statistically better off than someone who either has a gun on them but doesn't manage to use it, or someone who does something besides DGU.

And, actually, based on the data shown, the outcome of DGU wasn't markedly different than the outcome for people who defended themselves with another weapon -- in fact, for burglaries, for example, using a non-gun weapon turns out better than using a gun. Not to mention the fact that NCVS, being a survey, can't possibly try to determine whether a gun helps prevent people from getting killed.

And then, of course, there are the causality issues. The data can't tell whether people who DGU are actually making the outcome better, or whether it is the other way around: that people are able to use their gun because they are not facing as lethal a threat. For example, if a criminal surprises you, knocks you down, takes your money, and runs off before you pull your gun, that wouldn't show up as a "failed attempt to DGU", but rather as "no self-protective measure".


The other big problem is that comparing the outcomes of crime victimization events doesn't and cannot address the question of whether the overall effect of the gun is a net increase in safety. It only tries to argue that you are better off at the very moment that you are being attacked. As you quote, "there does not appear to be any increase in injury risk due to defensive gun use"

But it doesn't take into account the increased injury risk that could occur at other times (e.g. just ordinary gun accidents). And it also doesn't take into account the possibility that a gun could increase your risk of being a crime victim in the first place, say because your domestic partner decides to use the gun against you, or maybe because the gun gives you the added bravado to escalate an argument to the point where it results in an assault, rather than just walking away. Etc.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Trayvon in Tulsa? [View all] DanTex Apr 2012 OP
Most of us rely on the police for "protection"? Common Sense Party Apr 2012 #1
Yes, most people rely on the police for protection. DanTex Apr 2012 #4
I think both are wrong gejohnston Apr 2012 #7
Imagine a criminal gang DID rule the day... Callisto32 Apr 2012 #14
So you think the US government is like a criminal gang? DanTex Apr 2012 #19
Well, we could just opt for a POLICE STATE where only the police can legally possess guns... LAGC Apr 2012 #15
The state already has a monopoly on violence. DanTex Apr 2012 #18
Do they now? LAGC Apr 2012 #36
"I imagine that would make the streets quite a bit safer, but at what cost?" Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #24
the UK also gejohnston Apr 2012 #28
Exactly! Proves my point Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #29
rules my ass gejohnston Apr 2012 #32
Why did UK have even less crime, including violent crime, before any gun laws? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #34
gangsters are sociopaths gejohnston Apr 2012 #38
Big difference being access and rules of the game. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #39
partly correct gejohnston Apr 2012 #40
yeah, except that just isn't true iverglas Apr 2012 #43
if you want to go there then gejohnston Apr 2012 #44
I didn't go there iverglas Apr 2012 #45
I've also noticed that people in Europe are a lot shorter than Americans... DanTex Apr 2012 #46
So you are saying it is the deterrant of getting caught? Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #25
You really think so little of your neighbors? Glaug-Eldare Apr 2012 #37
While I am certain... discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #2
I doubt anyone envisions that a sidearm will protect one.... PavePusher Apr 2012 #3
Not so, 96% of population walk around in public everyday without need for a gun. They do fine. Hoyt Apr 2012 #5
96% of the population drive in cars without having car accidents, too. Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #26
Speaking of statistics... DanTex Apr 2012 #6
Cite for your "evidence-based argument", please. Thanks. n/t PavePusher Apr 2012 #8
Again: do you have an evidence-based argument that carrying a gun makes you safer? DanTex Apr 2012 #9
Hemenway? Please. beevul Apr 2012 #10
You're missing the point. DanTex Apr 2012 #11
Question... sarisataka Apr 2012 #12
This discussion started with me asking a very specific question. DanTex Apr 2012 #16
on the other hand gejohnston Apr 2012 #21
A well stated reply sarisataka Apr 2012 #23
Thanks! Hey, look everyone! Civil discourse in the gungeon! DanTex Apr 2012 #30
By people with opposing views sarisataka Apr 2012 #31
No, i'm really not. beevul Apr 2012 #13
OK, I'll put you down for "no evidence". DanTex Apr 2012 #17
You just don't know when to quit. beevul Apr 2012 #20
Still no evidence. DanTex Apr 2012 #22
I'm willing to risk it. No insurance-policy is cost-free. Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #27
LOL. beevul Apr 2012 #33
This message was self-deleted by its author Simo 1939_1940 Apr 2012 #35
Here you go. PavePusher Apr 2012 #41
Umm... not quite. DanTex Apr 2012 #42
I fail to see how it encourages vigilantism gejohnston Apr 2012 #47
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Trayvon in Tulsa?»Reply #42