I don't need validation for my claim I know weapons are used defensively that's the purpose of why we invented them thousands and thousands of years ago.
And the research from Harvard shows that the so called “Defensive Gun Use” is more commonly offensive and often illegal gun use https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
If you use something to defend yourself you're not a victim of violence. You're a victim of an attack but if the attack was unsuccessful and you don't have a scratch on you then you're not a victim of violence. Be careful for the subtle wording of some of these so-called "studies" If you want to be intellectually honest that is
Yeah that's kind of how all these grievance "studies" work that's why they're not citations and I don't care about them.
Because if there is no citation then it is only an opinion Now I remember why you are usually on my Iggy list
well it's my opinion that weapons are used for self-defense and it's the military's opinion every military in the history of all humanity and it's every Police department's opinion throughout the entirety of humanity. So if it's just an opinion that people in the know all agree with I'm okay with that Don't like getting stomped. Fair enough protect your echo chamber.
Here's stats on violent crime, and what violent crime can be. It mentions that in some societies, they don't report rape, some don't list arson as violent crime. Here's the link, find America on the charts per 100,000 capita - https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/violent-crime-rates-by-country I did read a stat somewhere that xx% of Americans believe violent crime is high and thus they need a gun for self defense, when the percentage was actually quite low.
An army would have weapons to fight other countries/armies. Pedestrians are not at war. Not all police forces in the world have guns. UK police do not routinely carry guns. If there's a gun incident, a police unit with guns is sent to the scene where those officers have had training. Due to such incidents from Islamic terrorists, police with guns only routinely carry guns in such areas as outside Downing Street, Buckingham Palace etc.. Do worry, your house won't make the list
You beat me to it..... I was going to point out that if firearms are no good for self-defense then it sure is funny that every cop carries one. Nothing changes a criminal's mind faster than being shot at or staring down the barrel of a gun. Or in some cases simply the implied threat.
If you could ever cite a source that was not thoroughly left-wing an agenda driven it might actually help...
Which is defined differently in different countries https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/violent-crime-rates-by-country Now often sites like these show Australia as having a high rate of “rape”. But the truth is Australia does not keep stats on rape instead it keeps stats on the far broader term “sexual assault” which can include, well, let’s say Donald Trump would have been arrested and charged here
So if you defend yourself successfully, the violence didn't take place? So if I successfully fought with a house intruder who brandished a knife, by using my knife, and he fled, then the violent home invasion didn't happen?
There isn't a connection between gun ownership and crime. Gun owners in our country are less likely to commit crime to then the police are.
not necessarily no. no The invasion happened and there would have been violence and that intense because you fought. If a home invader enters my house and I put my shotgun in his eye socket and he begs me not to shoot him and I didn't call the police to have him removed I'm a victim of a burglary but I'm not a victim of violence and no violence occurred. You can do that with a gun in your case you have to do violence. Where is the common sense in that?
