3 ms·
I get the feeling you have that problem in reverse. All defensive gun use is very rare. Certainly, rarer than the opposite (offensive gun use). Combined with su
by _hypx 5y ago
I get the feeling you have that problem in reverse. All defensive gun use is very rare. Certainly, rarer than the opposite (offensive gun use). Combined with suicide risk and accidental deaths or injuries, it is rarely justifiable. Study on this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2848468/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2848468/
- daenz 5y agoThe CDC reports 60,000 to 2.5M instances of defensive gun use per year[0] 0. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html#:~:text=Estimates%20of%20defensive%20gun%20use,defensive%20gun%20uses%20each%20year https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.htm....
- _hypx 5y agoThe numbers regarding defensive gun use is very likely to end up being a classic example of commercial interests affect scientific research. Nearly all of the high numbers come from a handful of sources that have connections with the firearm industry. There are many methodology problems with their numbers too. In the relatively small amount of research on this subject that is not influenced by commercial interests, the numbers suggest that defensive gun use is very rare: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091743515001188 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00917...
- daenz 5y agoSo the evidence linked on the CDC website is compromised because of commercial interests? Please post evidence of this specific example.