"hapaboy
Elite Member
Registered: Oct 2001
Posts: 1073
05-23-03 03:02 AM
Some Statistics
Every 13 seconds in America a privately owned firearm is used to prevent a violent crime. That's almost 2.5 million incidents a year.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference."
"As the data I posted earlier proves, having a gun is the best means to defend oneself bar none."
What is the difference between hard evidence used to gather relevant and meaningful statistics, and "evadenz" that good old boys use to support a bias.
The above quoted "statistics" are from defenders who have a belief. Of course they believe that guns are necessary, they own them!
Do self reported beliefs by those who have a bias toward gun ownership for protection and defense constitute proof and validity sufficient to support a case, and do the statistics constitute proof?
This is the difference between hard science and hackery. Hacks look for self reported studies, which are well known to be quite invalid statistically, when the people who are being interviewed have a pre-existing bias.
Imagine Betty Lou was confronted by someone wanting all her money. She pulls out here 45 magnum, and says "over my dead body."
Just how do you think Betty Lou is going to respond to the questionnaire?
She is pre-disposed to answer in favor of gun ownership.
Consequently, her response is not considered valid and objective, nor does it constitute proof simply because she "believed" the gun to be a factor in the outcome of the situation.
There is no proof that if Betty Lou had reasoned with the attacker, or had a non lethal weapon, that the outcome would have been any different.
____________________________________________________
Here are some hard facts, not quasi statistical evidence based on self reported studies:
Gun Death - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Country.................Homicide..........Suicide..........Unintentional
USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)
Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)
Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -
Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -
England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)
Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (1997)
* Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun
Data collected by Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and HELP Network
____________________________________________________
Regarding suicide and guns, and the claim that those who are going to kill themselves will find another way, perhaps.
However, I doubt that kids would have killed so many at Columbine, Santanna H.S.-----or postal workers who go crazy at a McDonalds would have been successful carrying sleeping pills.
The revealing aspect of the suicides are how many involving guns also involved the killing of others in the process.
That will tell you that guns, not controlled properly, are a danger to more than just the person whos want to jump off of a bridge to end their life.
I doubt that in Canada more people died in the process of someone jumping off of a bridge in a suicide attempt, than did a person who took out family members or others who just happened to have a loaded gun at their disposal.
Elite Member
Registered: Oct 2001
Posts: 1073
05-23-03 03:02 AM
Some Statistics
Every 13 seconds in America a privately owned firearm is used to prevent a violent crime. That's almost 2.5 million incidents a year.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference."
"As the data I posted earlier proves, having a gun is the best means to defend oneself bar none."
What is the difference between hard evidence used to gather relevant and meaningful statistics, and "evadenz" that good old boys use to support a bias.
The above quoted "statistics" are from defenders who have a belief. Of course they believe that guns are necessary, they own them!
Do self reported beliefs by those who have a bias toward gun ownership for protection and defense constitute proof and validity sufficient to support a case, and do the statistics constitute proof?
This is the difference between hard science and hackery. Hacks look for self reported studies, which are well known to be quite invalid statistically, when the people who are being interviewed have a pre-existing bias.
Imagine Betty Lou was confronted by someone wanting all her money. She pulls out here 45 magnum, and says "over my dead body."
Just how do you think Betty Lou is going to respond to the questionnaire?
She is pre-disposed to answer in favor of gun ownership.
Consequently, her response is not considered valid and objective, nor does it constitute proof simply because she "believed" the gun to be a factor in the outcome of the situation.
There is no proof that if Betty Lou had reasoned with the attacker, or had a non lethal weapon, that the outcome would have been any different.
____________________________________________________
Here are some hard facts, not quasi statistical evidence based on self reported studies:
Gun Death - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Country.................Homicide..........Suicide..........Unintentional
USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)
Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)
Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -
Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -
England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)
Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (1997)
* Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun
Data collected by Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and HELP Network
____________________________________________________
Regarding suicide and guns, and the claim that those who are going to kill themselves will find another way, perhaps.
However, I doubt that kids would have killed so many at Columbine, Santanna H.S.-----or postal workers who go crazy at a McDonalds would have been successful carrying sleeping pills.
The revealing aspect of the suicides are how many involving guns also involved the killing of others in the process.
That will tell you that guns, not controlled properly, are a danger to more than just the person whos want to jump off of a bridge to end their life.
I doubt that in Canada more people died in the process of someone jumping off of a bridge in a suicide attempt, than did a person who took out family members or others who just happened to have a loaded gun at their disposal.
