It not that much harder to kill someone with a hatchet or a machete. Unless that someone has a gun, of course. Seems if we put the resources currently directed at gun control into addressing the problems that cause 'blind rage' we might be better off. 'Blind rage' isn't something we should be accepting as part of everyday life. FTR, I would rather be shot than hurt people who don't deserve it in a fit of my 'blind rage.' But then again I don't have such fits, so maybe there's a disconnect there...
I've think I've seen and analyzed that study before, but I don't see the link in the OP. Can you share it?
Police in the UK have not traditionally carried guns because they fear it will motivate more criminals to carry guns. An arms race between law abiding citizens and criminals endangers everyone. It's hard to measure the frequency of a rare event with a phone survey. Furthermore, a claimed DGU is not necessarily a legally justifiable DGU. A police investigation is needed to verify that a claimed DGU is actually a legally justifiable bonafide DGU. You can't do that over the phone. Even if we could be sure that a certain number of legally justifiable DGUs take place every year that doesn't tell us if there are other equally effective or more effective ways to stop a crime. "After any protective action, 4.2% of victims were injured; after SDGU [self-defense gun use], 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... Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that SDGU is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25910555/ So it doesn't appear that using a gun in self defense is better than other methods of self defense.
"The proxies' answers were compared with those of control subjects who were matched to the victims according to neighborhood, sex, race, and age range....People who keep guns in their homes appear to be at greater risk of homicide in the home than people who do not.... We did not find evidence of a protective effect of keeping a gun in the home, even in the small subgroup of cases that involved forced entry." https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506 Interesting. In that study, homicide victims were compared to living people of the same age, race, and gender in the same neighborhood. It was found that the homicide victims were more likely to have lived in homes where guns were kept than the living people. If living in a home where a gun was kept conferred some kind of protective benefit then you would expect the opposite pattern. Similarly, if lung cancer victims were compared to people who did not have lung cancer and it was found that the lung cancer victims were more likely to smoke then it would be ridiculous to conclude that smoking is protective against lung cancer. In fact, it would appear that smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer.
Not at all. If druggies want to fry their brains and defecate on the sidewalk... who am I to get in the way? As long as its not my sidewlk)
This study also found that living in a gated community, living alone or renting all posed more risk for homicide in the home than having a gun did. Then there's this: https://reason.com/video/2022/09/30... now we find that,being murdered in your home.
First off, those are all situations where the crime escalated to active defense, or to put another way, the gun had to be put into action (whether it be fired or displayed or whatever). So its not all (or necessarily even most) of the situations where guns prevent crime. Secondly "the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that SDGU is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss" in the immediate incident. There will be after effects, possibly including a dead or permanantly injured perpetrator who can longer victimize people, or merely a 'scared straight' perpetrator and/or their aquaintences who decided to take up a less risky profession, or perhaps simply other criminals that become slightly more apprehensive and reserved every time they hear about someone standing up with a gun against one of their fellow victimizers, resulting in an overall reduction in their criminal activity. These are, of course, very difficult, perhaps impossible, to record and display on a spreadsheet, but they are a factor that warrants consideration nonetheless.
The expansion of the commerce clause under FDR created the "jurisdiction" of the federal government to wage that war
From that study: "These estimates imply that, for every 100 000 nonowners whose cohabitant acquired a handgun, 4.03 more died by firearm homicide in the ensuing 5 years than died among nonowners whose household remained gun-free." 4 deaths, per 100,000 nonowners in 365 days times five years of opportunity for homicide. No wonder that study indicated that the overall mortality rate wasn't affected.
You're the OP o wise and learned one. I was criticizing your post for its lack of inclusion of rather important information, and implying there is an obvious partisan reason you didn't include that information.
Seems like the issue is the female doesn't have a gun of her own. Cohabitants of gun owners is not gun owners. See how that works friend?
Looks at Wounded Knee, the Tulsa Race Massacre, and lots of other government massacres of civilians. Looks back at you.
Texas has private sales between citizens without background checks. That's about as unrestricted as it gets. We also mainly don't restrict carry now. Per your theory we should top the list. We don't. Ergo: Your theory doesn't work.
