3 ms·

> And the idea that physically weaker people (often women) can defend themselves against the strong. > Does this idea work? Surprisingly well. Does it? > 11.

> And the idea that physically weaker people (often women) can defend themselves against the strong. > Does this idea work? Surprisingly well. Does it? > 11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions > Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss. > This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use. It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths. > Hemenway D, Solnick SJ. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011. Preventive Medicine. 2015; 79: 22-27. * https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-thr...

beerandt 5y ago
This is like claiming people get in car accidents during every single driving trip, because accident reports fail to ever mention drivers reaching their destination safely and without incident.
- worrycue 5y ago
  Is having a gun in your purse really going to protect you from getting mugged? The person mugging you surely realises there is a possibility you have a gun and will shoot the moment he/she thinks you are pulling a gun out. Attackers always have first mover advantage and be better able to utilise their weapons.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    > The person mugging you surely realises there is a possibility you have a gun and will shoot the moment he/she thinks you are pulling a gun out. There's a study bearing this out: > Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05). * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/ * https://dx.doi.org/10.2105%2FAJPH.2008.143099 https://dx.doi.org/10.2105%2FAJPH.2008.143099
- throw0101a 5y ago
  Of the crimes where the victim was present, using a gun or another "weapon" led to roughly the same outcome: > Of over 14,000 incidents in which the victim was present, 127 (0.9%) involved a SDGU. SDGU was more common among males, in rural areas, away from home, against male offenders and against offenders with a gun. After any protective action, 4.2% of victims were injured; after SDGU, 4.1% of victims were injured. In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property. * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091743515001188 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00917... There's nothing magical about guns: seems that using a baseball bat is just as effective and poses fewer risks in other regards. Hence the title: "not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions".

beerandt 5y ago

This is like claiming people get in car accidents during every single driving trip, because accident reports fail to ever mention drivers reaching their destination safely and without incident.

worrycue 5y ago
Is having a gun in your purse really going to protect you from getting mugged? The person mugging you surely realises there is a possibility you have a gun and will shoot the moment he/she thinks you are pulling a gun out. Attackers always have first mover advantage and be better able to utilise their weapons.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > The person mugging you surely realises there is a possibility you have a gun and will shoot the moment he/she thinks you are pulling a gun out. There's a study bearing this out: > Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05). * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/ * https://dx.doi.org/10.2105%2FAJPH.2008.143099 https://dx.doi.org/10.2105%2FAJPH.2008.143099
throw0101a 5y ago
Of the crimes where the victim was present, using a gun or another "weapon" led to roughly the same outcome: > Of over 14,000 incidents in which the victim was present, 127 (0.9%) involved a SDGU. SDGU was more common among males, in rural areas, away from home, against male offenders and against offenders with a gun. After any protective action, 4.2% of victims were injured; after SDGU, 4.1% of victims were injured. In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property. * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091743515001188 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00917... There's nothing magical about guns: seems that using a baseball bat is just as effective and poses fewer risks in other regards. Hence the title: "not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions".