More likely to get hurt or killed while carrying a firearm?

[Itstjs]

In some ways I can see it being true, depends on who hurts you, or kills you, more chances of an LEO seeing you with a weapon pulled, and just happens to be trigger happy. Aside from that small, small chance, I dont see it being true by any other means.

[Brabbit]

Some very good points are made and I wish that the anti-gun populus would just keep their opinions to themselves! (But we all know that will never happen.) I recently caught hell for target shooting with my wife and 2 children. The verbal attacker was my wife's father who conveniently lives next to us. According to him, I was putting his grandchildren at risk by letting them take turns plinking with my S&W M@P 22. He did not bother to notice that they both wore hearing and eye protection, and followed every safety rule to the letter!All that mattered was they could be hurt or killed. Well no one was injured that day, and only some soda cans died! He is the type you speak of and nothing can be said to convince him that guns are not some evil force. Getting a bit off point, but my wife and I both carry from morning to night and it has never invited trouble,in fact it may have prevented it because I open carry most times (Gotta love VT!)

Iwould rather die standing , than die begging on my knees!

[DeanT]

"Myth: You are more likely to be injured or killed using a gun for self-defense

Fact: You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were:160

Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%

160 British Home Office – not a “pro-gun” organization by any means"

This is a direct quote from Gun Facts version 5.1 copyright 2009 page 28. I will trust them over some hoplophobe running off at the mouth. If you don't have Gun Facts I suggest you download it now, it's free. Gun Facts - Gun Control | Facts | Debunk | Myths

[Lavon]

delete

[Lavon]

Yep statistics can appear to show two different things and still be correct.

Going to use small numbers so as not to hurt my brain..lol

Let's say one year 1000 people ride motorcycles and out of them, 200 receive head injuries from an accident.

The next year 2000 people ride motorcycle and out them 300 receive head injuries from an accident.

Ok..In year one 20% of people that rode motorcycles received a head injury. In year two 15% of people that rode motorcycles received a head injury.

But if you leave out the total number of riders and only count the injuries, 200 to 300 was a 50% increase in head injuries from year one to year two. Although the over all percentage dropped 5%.

Dang...head still hurting a bit... my main point is, you can make statistics say about whatever you want...it just depends on what data you feed in to them (or leave out).

So true. Liberal environmentalist are the worst.
I worked in an environmental field for almost 20 years doing research on bio-control methods for nuisance plants. There came a time when "funding" was scarce. It really opens your eyes to the moral-less individuals for whom you work.
Stats can be "made" to show anything.

[OngoingFreedom]

It is worse than that. As a medical professional I have to deal with colleagues whose only experience with firearms is the medical and public health literature the large body of which is very flawed. The entire public health approach to gun violence is fundamentally flawed as it tend to look at firearms (a tool) as a causative agent. This is often directly at odds with criminology literature which tends to look at the criminal as causative agent. Guns in the Medical Literature -- A Failure of Peer Review
Here us a decent review which makes that point.

Thank you. That was useful.