According to the information in the OP, the action least likely to result in an injury during an "incident" is the use of a firearm. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001188 Table 3b This makes sense, of course, because the firearm is a direct and immediate threat to the life of the instigator of said event.
The fact that there are over 2 million successful DGUs per year. Statistically she would be successful.
You don't 't have to keep taking CCW classes to satisfy training requirements, you can submit copies of a certificate that indicates training was completed.
It is neither an example of inline quoting, nor dishonest techniques, when each paragraph responded to holds its own context and is independent of said context from other paragraphs contained within the post. That is the purpose of constructing paragraphs, to separate points into the correct context. Now then. Explain why so few police officers are killed despite having firearms, and having the opportunity to use them. And explain it all without attempting to claim that their training makes the difference. When you are done with that, explain what english language rules dictate that "I bet" amounts to a form of guarantee. And when you are done with that, explain why should be given any credibility, when your cited studies do not match real world events that contradict their findings.
Because the study included numbers on self defense that were useful in the present discussion. So what you are really saying then is that the woman was stupid whether she had a gun or not? Then why even bring up your opinion about it? No one who actually knows what they are doing with a gun would ever purposefully put themselves in a life threatening situation. No sane person would do that to themselves. You are dodging the issue anyway. You asked for proof the situation could have been different if she had been carrying a gun. You got it. The study was about the effects of guns, one of the points was about self defense and the conclusion of that point was if could make a difference in defending one's self. So there you go, that's what you asked for that's what you got no more, no less. By the way, no one is defending stupid people here. We all agree that doing stupid things is bad and may or may not end badly. Could a gun help even if you get yourself in that situation? Why yes it could. Definitively.
I'm not here to teach you basic English. And 2014 police deaths per 100k was 19.7. Firearm deaths in the US per 100k was 10.5. So, not sure of your point.
OK... woman going jogging alone in a wooded marshland = stupid. How does adding a firearm make it less stupid? Could a gun help? statistically, using REAL DATA, your gun makes you more likely to die. So, carry if you want. But your gun will not save you from stupid.
Evidence provided here on MULTIPLE occasions. go back and read the thread. AND Calling a frog a frog is not an insult. It is an observation.
I love it when people put gun related suicides down as if they are proof of anything. Because they conviently ignore the total suicide rates by country. For instance, Japan which has a much higher suicide rate than the USA despite a virtual ban of firearms. Anyone with a brain can see more Americans kill themselves with guns than any other means, but the truth is that doesn't mean America has more suicides than anywhere else either.
Do you mean the study done 13 years ago in a single URBAN environment? The one that was limited to about 600 people? The one that included an undisclosed number of mutual combat situations precipitated by a prior argument? The one that makes no mention of legally owned firearms or not? Yea, I don't think any of this represents most of America and its legal firearm owners.
First, based on your manner of address, you are not here to engage in open, honest, and legitimate debate either. Your entire purpose seems to be nothing other than shouting down those that do not accept your faulty position that simply having a firearm for their own defense, makes them five times more likely to be killed than if they had simply groveled for their lives, and begged for mercy at the hands of their assailants, in the delusional hope that those who have no concern for their well being will suddenly have a change of heart. Your cited study was intentionally flawed from the very beginning, carried out in a deliberately dishonest method of arriving at the conclusions that were desired. Calling random individuals in a crime-ridden area to ask them questions about firearms is no way to conduct a legitimate study pertaining to anything. The researchers may as well have been asking about whether or not those being called possessed child pornography and dismembered body parts. Second, For the given year one hundred and twenty six police officers were killed in the line of duty. This is hardly an outstanding number according to the findings of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which does not even rank being a police officer as among the top ten most dangerous jobs in the united states. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fleetwood/how-dangerous-is-police-w_b_6373798.html Beyond which, most deaths of police officers are the result or motor vehicle rather than by firearms. If you have an actual point to make during your time here, do everyone a favor and kindly get to it already.
Legal or not the bullets still kill. got something more recent? Perhaps nationwide? none of your ...qualifiers were what the study is about. If you want more studies and bigger stuudies go to your republican congressman and demand they stop blocking this type of research. till then, the data is the data. real data based on real incidents. Not anecdotal fairy tales based on being scared because a Black guy with a bow tie came too close.
I made my point way back in my first post. No gun will protect you from stupid. Actually, the data does show that "no gun" protects you from stupid more than "a gun." Fancy that. Oh, if you want to include ONLY firearms deaths, that's 14.7 per 100k nearly half again as many as the population as a whole. AND, since your feelings are obviously hurt. I say "I bet A is B" You say "how much?" My response indicates the degree to which I am willing to "GUARANTEE" that "A is B." It's just basic English.
The argument is about DGUs by legal gun owners. Not gang bangers defending themselves from other bangers. So your argument that people that defend themselves with guns are 5 times as likely to get shot does not apply to legal gun owners and those with carry licenses. Your whole argument in this thread regarding DGUs is bogus. Successfully DGUs happen everyday. Legal gun owners getting shot while they defend themselves happens rarely.
Yet, in critiquing the available evidence, you've presented not a single shred of proof that ANY of the incidents studied were related to gang activity. So.... The evidence is the evidence and is conclusive. Thinking your gun will save you from stupid makes you 5.5 times more likely to die in an assault.
Your supposed point is that begging and groveling for your life in an appeal to the mercy of the one that holds no regard for your well being, is more likely to result in your survival than having the ability to defend yourself against those that hold no regard for your well being. Your entire position is ludicrous and has no bearing in reality. You have made no point in this entire discussion, other than the fact that you will disregard how the real world works whenever it fits your narrative. If one looks they will find multiple news accounts of individuals successfully protecting themselves against harm because they were armed. But there are absolutely no accounts on individuals escaping harm by appealing to the humanity of their attackers.
And how does the above apply if the assailant does not have a firearm, but their intended victim does?
You keep using the word stupid as if all that defend themselves from attackers have done something stupid. That's not the case, proven by the successful DGUs we read about everyday. I'm still looking for stories of people being shot dead in a DGU that otherwise would have lived. They don't exist and you know it or you would have provided proof. Your study used the words "mutual combat situations precipitated by a prior argument". It also states the study was done in a single urban environment. This doesn't describe typical DGUs in America of innocent people being attacked by criminals. The study is flawed, not only because it is a tiny sample, but because it was only done in Urban Philadelphia. Hardly similar to most of America. Also, there is no way to verify that these folks wouldn't have been killed even if they were unarmed. If I'm drawing my firearm in self defense, it's because I have nothing to lose as I believe my life is in imminent danger anyhow. Having a chance is better than not having a chance.
According to the BJS in 2014 there were 5.4 violent crimes in 2014. According to the FBI there were 14,500 murders in the US. That means that less than 0.26% of violent crimes resulted in murder. Clearly indicative that despite the fact that the crime was violent, the intent was not to kill. Add a gun for the victim, add the opportunity to use that gun, the "SURVEY SAYS..." you have a gun you are more likely to die in a criminal assault than an unarmed person. It's just math. The "real world" as you so eloquently describe it is not based on your fantasy of getting the jump on a bad guy and doing justice to him. In the "real world" the bad guy has every advantage in the confrontation and your best defense is to cooperate. but, don't listen to me... https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/article/31555 "Portland Police Bureau Response to Robbery During the Robbery • Remain calm. Most robbers do not wish to harm their victims. They are only interested in getting money or property. The calmer you are, the less chance there is of the robber becoming agitated or dangerous. This also increases your chances of getting a more accurate description of the robber and being of greater assistance in the robber’s apprehension. • Do not argue, fight, surprise or attempt to use weapons against a robber. He has already taken a major risk by entering your store and is usually as frightened as you are. Because of this, additional provocation on your part could make the situation worse. Therefore, give the robber exactly what he or she wants and do it quickly. Don’t take unnecessary chances with your life."
