3 ms·

People in unarmed countries get stabbed/beaten/shot if their attacker is larger/stronger/younger than them. Here, older/weaker people have a chance to protect t

• mullingitover 4y ago
  Anecdotal evidence is great for appeals to emotion, but the data tells a different story[1]. [1] 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...
  • daenz 4y ago
    I can show you hundreds of news stories of defensive gun use from the past 6 months, or you can be satisfied with a single study, which also claims: >women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault I don't know why anyone would choose to believe something that is so easily falsifiable with a 2 minute google search[0] 0. https://www.kfvs12.com/story/9273275/accused-rapist-shot-killed-by-victim/ https://www.kfvs12.com/story/9273275/accused-rapist-shot-kil...
    • mullingitover 4y ago
      As the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data. It's great that you read the page I cited, but you cherry picked your quote. Here's the full section: > 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. Emphasis added.
      • daenz 4y ago
        >(in more than 300 cases) Yes, this shows the bias of the authors. They come to a conclusion that is only supported by undersampled data, yet their language is strongly biased towards that specific conclusion ("women never..."). Unbiased language would not read that way. I suspect the language flies under your radar because you seem to agree with the conclusions. But its a huge red flag that the authors are not approaching the subject in good faith. Studies on DGU is an oft-treaded subject. I've looked at quite a bit of data, and if you have also, you would also know how and why it is so difficult to compile reliable data on the subject. Which is why I find it nearly futile to throw studies at each other.