Thought Y’All Might Enjoy Some Science Fiction

[Lab4Us]

Here’s an idiot savant that believes it’s only those previously exposed to violence that use their firearms (which they only store loaded and unlocked) for self defense. The way I read the article, author must have only polled those who live the gangsta life…

Study highlights that less than 1% of people with firearm access engage in defensive use in any given year

Those with access to firearms rarely use their weapons to defend themselves, and instead are far more likely to be exposed to gun violence in other ways, according to a Rutgers Health study.

medicalxpress.com

 

[belladonna]

Here’s an idiot savant that believes it’s only those previously exposed to violence that use their firearms (which they only store loaded and unlocked) for self defense. The way I read the article, author must have only polled those who live the gangsta life…

Study highlights that less than 1% of people with firearm access engage in defensive use in any given year

Those with access to firearms rarely use their weapons to defend themselves, and instead are far more likely to be exposed to gun violence in other ways, according to a Rutgers Health study.

medicalxpress.com

Geez...I agree with you. It's at times like these when I wish we had an eyeroll emoji.

 

[benstt]

That's not what it says. It says people with easy access to guns are more likely to be exposed to gun violence than they are to use their gun defensively. It doesn't address whether having a gun puts you at higher risk of gun violence than people who don't. It says you, as a gun owner, are more likely to be exposed to gun violence compared to how likely you are to use on defensively. Which makes sense. If you hear gunfire down the road, you've been exposed to gunfire but are not likely shooting back. That's one in the exposure column, zero in the defensive use column.

 

[OldGrunt]

Well, all I can gather from this article is that if you have bad intentions towards my family or myself, just don't come around my place. Problem solved.

 

[Mr.W.]

The author of the "study" is indeed an idiot, but he's no savant.

 

[youngolddude]

My wife used a gun once to chase off a car load of dudes who got of the car and approached her at night in her work parking lot. No shots fired, but I figure it saved her from kidnapping, rape and/or murder. The author may have thought she should have her gun unloaded and locked in the safe, but we think differently.

 

[Pitdogg2]

I stopped reading after this;
New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center

 

[Lab4Us]

That's not what it says. It says people with easy access to guns are more likely to be exposed to gun violence than they are to use their gun defensively. It doesn't address whether having a gun puts you at higher risk of gun violence than people who don't. It says you, as a gun owner, are more likely to be exposed to gun violence compared to how likely you are to use on defensively. Which makes sense. If you hear gunfire down the road, you've been exposed to gunfire but are not likely shooting back. That's one in the exposure column, zero in the defensive use column.

This last line from the article says it all “ When defensive gun use occurs, we should not necessarily conclude that the result was a life saved that otherwise would have been lost."

There are, literally, hundreds, if not thousands (or more), of examples annually of defensive use of guns preventing felonious assaults and far worse. You don’t think that was disingenuous to overlook that in an article such as this?

It does not take a “life lost” to validate successful use of firearms to prevent significant pain short of death. As mentioned by youngolddude above, kidnapping and rape come to mind, as well as ANY assault that results in a long disability or disfigurement.

 

[Arthur Shelby]

I stopped reading after this;
New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center

Correct. Michael D. Anestis is the executive director of the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center, Piscataway and the lead author of the "study." Not a valid source.

His Ph.D. thesis was entitled Affective and behavioral dysregulation: An analysis of individual difference variables in the acquired capability for suicide. smh...

 

[BruceMc]

Did I read that correctly, for their statistics hearing gunshots in your neighborhood is counted as being exposed to gun violence?

 

[Arthur Shelby]

Did I read that correctly, for their statistics hearing gunshots in your neighborhood is counted as being exposed to gun violence?

I didn't read it at all, did they forget to mention video games?

 

[OldGrunt]

Did I read that correctly, for their statistics hearing gunshots in your neighborhood is counted as being exposed to gun violence?

Better get to your safe space quick!

 

[BruceMc]

Them gangstas across the road slaughtering those doves, I need witless protection!

 

[Lab4Us]

I didn't read it at all, did they forget to mention video games?

Now, in all fairness, I have been playing video games since the 80s. That includes things like DOOM and Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc., along the way (though I prefer open world RPGs). I have never had one inkling to reenact anything I’ve seen in said games.

I am not a proponent of video games cause violence, given a psychologically sound person. Not to mention far more gore and desensitization on television and in movies where impressionable youth have access.

I’m thinking they forgot to mention “parenting”!

 

[mikep]

It came out of Rutgers, which I know a thing or two about (i work there). It is left-leaning to say the least. If the people they interviewed are locals, New Brunswick, then that explains a lot. It is a gang-ridden dump of a city.

 

[Bassbob]

That's not what it says. It says people with easy access to guns are more likely to be exposed to gun violence than they are to use their gun defensively. It doesn't address whether having a gun puts you at higher risk of gun violence than people who don't. It says you, as a gun owner, are more likely to be exposed to gun violence compared to how likely you are to use on defensively. Which makes sense. If you hear gunfire down the road, you've been exposed to gunfire but are not likely shooting back. That's one in the exposure column, zero in the defensive use column.

Dude, it goes out of it's way through the whole article to end with this.

"It is important to note that, just because someone perceives someone else as a threat does not mean they were one and, if someone truly is a threat, that does not always mean a firearm is necessary for defense. When defensive gun use occurs, we should not necessarily conclude that the result was a life saved that otherwise would have been lost."


There is no way to see this as anything other than very biased.

 

[Arthur Shelby]

Dude, it goes out of it's way through the whole article to end with this.

"It is important to note that, just because someone perceives someone else as a threat does not mean they were one and, if someone truly is a threat, that does not always mean a firearm is necessary for defense. When defensive gun use occurs, we should not necessarily conclude that the result was a life saved that otherwise would have been lost."


There is no way to see this as anything other than very biased.

It should have said "When defensive gun use occurs, we should say 'Good riddance to bad rubbish.'"

 

[KillerFord1977]

Now, in all fairness, I have been playing video games since the 80s. That includes things like DOOM and Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc., along the way (though I prefer open world RPGs). I have never had one inkling to reenact anything I’ve seen in said games.

I am not a proponent of video games cause violence, given a psychologically sound person. Not to mention far more gore and desensitization on television and in movies where impressionable youth have access.

I’m thinking they forgot to mention “parenting”!

So, that is you that has been teabagging my dead body on COD

 

[Wirenut]

Did I read that correctly, for their statistics hearing gunshots in your neighborhood is counted as being exposed to gun violence?

I guess I am to be counted in their stats as being exposed to gun violence.
I have a couple of large farms near me and every weekend I hear gunshots all day long.
I feel for all the geese that fell victim to this senseless gun violence..

 

[benstt]

Dude, it goes out of it's way through the whole article to end with this.

"It is important to note that, just because someone perceives someone else as a threat does not mean they were one and, if someone truly is a threat, that does not always mean a firearm is necessary for defense. When defensive gun use occurs, we should not necessarily conclude that the result was a life saved that otherwise would have been lost."


There is no way to see this as anything other than very biased.

How is that wrong? Is a lethal response always the right one? Is perception necessarily reality? If your kid comes in the front door drunk and unannounced at 0200 after night of drinking with the guts and you shoot him, is that really "defensive" because of perception? Was a life saved or lost? If a gut busts in to steal a toaster or copper piping to buy drugs and has no intention of conflict with a homeowner, is killing him actually saving a life, or just taking one? Would a homeowner have been every bit as safe locking the bedroom door and with a 12-gauge pointed at it and not killing anyone? Are those questions biased, or legitimate? Maybe not everyone is a deadly threat.

My original point stands: the OP misread the article.