3 ms·

> when looking at data regarding defensive gun use in the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), there was no evidence that gun use reduced the likelihood

> when looking at data regarding defensive gun use in the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), there was no evidence that gun use reduced the likelihood of injury during attacks on women. That's my perspective too. I'm a woman who lives alone, and has no vehicle. Right now, I specifically avoided getting a gun. A friend gave me a knife I have no intention of ever using, maybe carrying it as a "pick a new target" kind of message. Obviously I'd love to feel more safe but I've yet to be convinced more firepower is actually effective at protecting me.

nprateem 4y ago
I was always told that you're more likely to be stabbed with your own knife than anything else.
- DoctorOW 4y ago
  The same is true of being shot with your own gun
  - chitowneats 4y ago
    I have heard both of these claims frequently but have never been presented with any evidence. Sounds like it could be a "just so" story for gun control advocates.
  - 42e6e8c8-f7b8-4 4y ago
    There's a YouTube channel devoted to analyzing actual footage of violent, mostly gun related crimes. "Active Self Protection" https://m.youtube.com/c/ActiveSelfProtection https://m.youtube.com/c/ActiveSelfProtection A pattern you see is that simply _having_ a gun is a massive massive deterrent. When the victim finds an opportunity to counter ambush, they can very frequently prevail. If they practice even a little they will be more skilled than most criminals, who don't even know how to hold a gun many times.
    - DoctorOW 4y ago
      > A pattern you see is that simply _having_ a gun is a massive massive deterrent. I think that's true of having any weapon. So a gun specifically is an unnecessary risk in my opinion.
      - 42e6e8c8-f7b8-4 4y ago
        I'm not talking about brandishing or open carry. The most common deterrent I've seen from the the (literally) thousands of violent encounters I've seen on "Active Self Protection" is that criminals start running and scrambling when the victim counter ambushes with their _concealed_ gun, whether they even put a shot on target. The victim should put a shot on center mass as that puts the criminal in "FIBS" mode, "Fudge I've Been Shot", and their shooting accuracy plummets drastically. To the extent that a victim can close the distance and counter ambush with a knife, that could be effective. Guns are a range weapon which is extremely useful in a gun fight. Brandishing a knife is likely to get you shot if you aren't ready to immediately use it.
  - flyingfences 4y ago
    This statistic is heavily weighted by suicides and domestic violence. If you don't have cause for concern over those two issues, the numbers are very different.
ghostoftiber 4y ago
The problem with these studies is essentially survivorship bias. In the article, a woman places her hand on her hip as to advertise she has a firearm. This causes her attacker to back off and retreat. Does that count as "gun use"? Should we file that under "rape statistic" or "assault statistic"? If she had shot him, there definitely would be a paper trail. But if the firearm intimidates someone enough that they don't commit a crime, where's the paper trail?
- ravenstine 4y ago
  That and I suspect a lot of people don't even report this sort of thing because they believe that it's pointless. I think they're wrong in such cases, but I can definitely understand why; when police don't take property and trespassing crimes seriously, people lose faith. Depending on the state one lives in, it can be concerning to report that one used a gun in public even if the trigger was never pulled. I'm a gun owner, and even though I would want to give the police a report of an incident, I would feel hesitation because I live in California; do I really want to tell police in California that I was holding a gun for anything but target practice? Better leave well enough alone and not take a chance.
- DoctorOW 4y ago
  You're overcomplicating the methodology. Let's map out a few numbers: A: Number of crime victims armed B: Number of crime victims unarmed C: Victims of ones own gun (who don't already fall into category B) D = B-A+C means D is the number of people who were not the victim of violence and those only difference is that they were armed. This is because D is goes up as A gets smaller than B, provided guns don't simply lead to self-harm. D/(A+B) gives us a handy percentage we can use to contextualize this difference.
  - ghostoftiber 4y ago
    No. But you are making my point - There exists an unaccounted group where the firearm (or really threat of a firearm) prevented the crime.
    - 4y ago
goethes_kind 4y ago
In general, prevention is the best thing you can do. I am a man, but I am also not an idiot, so I often think of my surroundings. If I lived in the US, and could legally carry for self defense. I would, not because I think it would be the solution to every situation, but because I am very cautious and like to cover all my bases. However gun ownership comes with additional responsibilities and if some people see a woman jogging with a gun on her hip, they might just decide that is a quick way to get an untainted gun.
rasz 4y ago
> knife I have no intention of ever using, maybe carrying it as a "pick a new target" kind of message Dont, you wouldnt know how to use it anyway. Criminals and psychopaths are really good at reading people so you wont intimidate anyone with any experience in exerting violence, you might get stabbed with your own knife instead. Take a self defense class, one that emphasizes awareness of your surroundings. You wont learn how to fight anyway unless you decide to dedicated one evening a week for at least a year, so your best bet is learning to recognize and gauge risks. Thats why a gun is such an alluring proposition, you can actually learn how to defend yourself with a gun in a couple of months without physical exercises. Its point and click.

nprateem 4y ago

I was always told that you're more likely to be stabbed with your own knife than anything else.

DoctorOW 4y ago
The same is true of being shot with your own gun
- chitowneats 4y ago
  I have heard both of these claims frequently but have never been presented with any evidence. Sounds like it could be a "just so" story for gun control advocates.
- 42e6e8c8-f7b8-4 4y ago
  There's a YouTube channel devoted to analyzing actual footage of violent, mostly gun related crimes. "Active Self Protection" https://m.youtube.com/c/ActiveSelfProtection https://m.youtube.com/c/ActiveSelfProtection A pattern you see is that simply _having_ a gun is a massive massive deterrent. When the victim finds an opportunity to counter ambush, they can very frequently prevail. If they practice even a little they will be more skilled than most criminals, who don't even know how to hold a gun many times.
  - DoctorOW 4y ago
    > A pattern you see is that simply _having_ a gun is a massive massive deterrent. I think that's true of having any weapon. So a gun specifically is an unnecessary risk in my opinion.
    - 42e6e8c8-f7b8-4 4y ago
      I'm not talking about brandishing or open carry. The most common deterrent I've seen from the the (literally) thousands of violent encounters I've seen on "Active Self Protection" is that criminals start running and scrambling when the victim counter ambushes with their _concealed_ gun, whether they even put a shot on target. The victim should put a shot on center mass as that puts the criminal in "FIBS" mode, "Fudge I've Been Shot", and their shooting accuracy plummets drastically. To the extent that a victim can close the distance and counter ambush with a knife, that could be effective. Guns are a range weapon which is extremely useful in a gun fight. Brandishing a knife is likely to get you shot if you aren't ready to immediately use it.
- flyingfences 4y ago
  This statistic is heavily weighted by suicides and domestic violence. If you don't have cause for concern over those two issues, the numbers are very different.

ghostoftiber 4y ago

The problem with these studies is essentially survivorship bias. In the article, a woman places her hand on her hip as to advertise she has a firearm. This causes her attacker to back off and retreat. Does that count as "gun use"? Should we file that under "rape statistic" or "assault statistic"? If she had shot him, there definitely would be a paper trail. But if the firearm intimidates someone enough that they don't commit a crime, where's the paper trail?

ravenstine 4y ago
That and I suspect a lot of people don't even report this sort of thing because they believe that it's pointless. I think they're wrong in such cases, but I can definitely understand why; when police don't take property and trespassing crimes seriously, people lose faith. Depending on the state one lives in, it can be concerning to report that one used a gun in public even if the trigger was never pulled. I'm a gun owner, and even though I would want to give the police a report of an incident, I would feel hesitation because I live in California; do I really want to tell police in California that I was holding a gun for anything but target practice? Better leave well enough alone and not take a chance.
DoctorOW 4y ago
You're overcomplicating the methodology. Let's map out a few numbers: A: Number of crime victims armed B: Number of crime victims unarmed C: Victims of ones own gun (who don't already fall into category B) D = B-A+C means D is the number of people who were not the victim of violence and those only difference is that they were armed. This is because D is goes up as A gets smaller than B, provided guns don't simply lead to self-harm. D/(A+B) gives us a handy percentage we can use to contextualize this difference.
- ghostoftiber 4y ago
  No. But you are making my point - There exists an unaccounted group where the firearm (or really threat of a firearm) prevented the crime.
  - 4y ago

goethes_kind 4y ago

In general, prevention is the best thing you can do. I am a man, but I am also not an idiot, so I often think of my surroundings. If I lived in the US, and could legally carry for self defense. I would, not because I think it would be the solution to every situation, but because I am very cautious and like to cover all my bases. However gun ownership comes with additional responsibilities and if some people see a woman jogging with a gun on her hip, they might just decide that is a quick way to get an untainted gun.

rasz 4y ago

> knife I have no intention of ever using, maybe carrying it as a "pick a new target" kind of message Dont, you wouldnt know how to use it anyway. Criminals and psychopaths are really good at reading people so you wont intimidate anyone with any experience in exerting violence, you might get stabbed with your own knife instead. Take a self defense class, one that emphasizes awareness of your surroundings. You wont learn how to fight anyway unless you decide to dedicated one evening a week for at least a year, so your best bet is learning to recognize and gauge risks. Thats why a gun is such an alluring proposition, you can actually learn how to defend yourself with a gun in a couple of months without physical exercises. Its point and click.