More likely to get hurt or killed while carrying a firearm? - Page 4
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 36 of 36

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

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    756
    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.
    Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier....One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.

  2.   
  3. 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 [email protected] 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!

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Murfreesboro, TN
    Posts
    76

    From Gun Facts 5.1

    "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

  5. #34
    delete
    Taurus 24/7 OSS DS .45
    Ruger LCR .357
    Remington 870 Tactical 12 ga

  6. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallguy View Post
    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.
    Taurus 24/7 OSS DS .45
    Ruger LCR .357
    Remington 870 Tactical 12 ga

  7. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Mustang View Post
    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.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast