STUDY: Using Guns for Defense Leads to Fewer Injuries

Here's a link to a 60 page white paper on defensive use of guns:  http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/tough-targets-when-criminals-face-armed-resistance-citizens

The last 40 pages is an appendix of detailed incidents of defensive gun use between 2003-2011.  

I bet you won't see Vice President Biden or Senator Feinstein waiving that report around.

Unfortunately, this study may or may not disprove that.

Problem with studies and statistics, they usually focus on only parts of a much larger/complex issue but they get applied to a broader base.  Well, I guess that's not the problem of studies themselves, but the society that interprets them.

Per the reference in the original post, this study focused on using a gun by crime victims for defense which resulted in fewer injuries than other methods.  I wouldn't disagree with that.  But that's ONLY what was stated.  Did it address any injuries outside of defense in a crime?  Accidents, etc?  How about gun used in committing a crime?  It only mentioned in defense of one.

In short, this study disproved the "better chance of getting hurt if you have a gun" in defense of crime, but nothing else.  Technically, your chance of getting hurt could still be better in a different case study.  For example, someone would have zero chance to accidentally shoot themselves or someone else if they don't own one  The chances have improved infinitely with ownership.  Odds still may be remote, but there IS a better chance.  The gun control side may argue that the chances an injury due to an accidental discharge may increase significantly with ownership, which overshadows the safety it could provide IF you are a victim of a crime.

I think studies can be very enlightening, but one must be careful on what they actually look at and to what the the results can be applied to.  I think it's prudent to be aware of what they studied and the sample size, etc, and be a little diligent on making assumptions based on the results and apply them to groups outside the scope of the study.

There are so many facets to the gun ownership issue, that it may be impossible for any study to completely encompass all of them.

We agree then.

Unfortunately, I see it far too often that interest groups like to spin stats and studies to support their case and apply it to groups outside the parameters of the studies they reference.  Not good science.  But they are using it for politics, not science - so I guess it shouldn't be a surprise.

I don't get it, because the study by the CDC did discuss most of that. That deaths due to accidents are less than one percent and have steadily declined for decades.

It studied violent crimes and showed that 70% of guns come from sales and only a small percent are stolen. That self defense use equaled or was greater than criminal use depending on estimates.

Not really an argument, I just don't get what it is you are saying that it one discussed one narrow point.

The only point I was trying to make is the original link discussed was the decrease of injuries due to the use of a gun for defense in crimes.  That's interesting and compelling.

I was simply making the observation and perhaps a caution to not take the results and extrapolate beyond that - I didn't accuse anyone of doing that, and maybe no one here needs that caution and I'm preaching to the choir.  I have my views and they are what they are and I won't bring them up, but I was simply trying to add to the conversation.  I'm not debating anyone in this thread.

I intended to comment more on the phenomena of special interest groups taking stats/studies and saying they are definitive in some way for their crusade rather than conceding/admitting/caveat they apply only to what was studied.  Perhaps using this as a possible example.

I constantly hear from people on many sides of MANY arguments that say "There was a study that determined this/that, so therefore it's true across the board and I'm right".  If you look at the studies they reference, more often or not, it has a more narrow scope than what's proclaimed.

Ya, the second link the Daniel posted about the CDC study was a good read. And it really did not tell me what I already didn't know. If you just look at CDC data for deaths, they already show the numbers of accidental deaths and the FBI stats show the number of "assault" rifles and mass shooting compared to the rest of the gun crime being very very low.

I did understand the point you were making about stats in general and people using them out of context.

Well, a Senator right here in Colorado told a rape victim she would more than likely get shot herself if she had a gun when the victim spoke against not allowing CC on college campuses. It sort of made the news.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22721762/colorado-senators-comments-rape-victim-drawing-criticism

When trying to find the source for the Senators remarks, the study... you can't find it, but I did find this...

http://evil-klown.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-colorado-coalition-against-gun.html

I do not know why I can't post text... it's acting weird... but the stats are suspect to what she actually said.

If we can refrain from personalizing or name calling it may help keep things civil.

That's also forum policy.

No, I was just going with the general flow of the conversation and using your post as an example. That's really great that you got it all figured out, the people actually writing the laws either willfully ignore reality, or are just woefully ignorant of it.

It's not all about you.

Researching the stats, as Kido mentioned, brings up a host of misinformation form 15 year old studies. I would post it, but I'm sure the point is obvious to most.... well, at least you.