Riiiight. That’s why cops carry guns, too.
Hilarious! Chiraq, where people openly murder each other with guns every day.
And this ho thinks self-defense is the problem. Bite me.
Tell this to Ed Burke...
The “argument” is too silly to read more and/or treat it seriously by the author Nina something.
Alternative is the woman (or anybody) gets robbed, then file for useless police report, and robber(s) get another day repeating the same thing.
Just this morning the local news (in Philly) somebody handed over his money to the two robbers and still got shot in the face for his trouble.
Really?
Let's look at it the other way -- Chicago has extremely strict laws about firearms. It's permissive at all. How is Chicago doing in regards to preventing or deterring crime?
Okay, so this means Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Montana, the Dakotas, and elsewhere like that are among the most violent places on earth.
It is extremely rare for a legal gun owner to use a gun successfully in self-defense.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Personally, I WANT there to be ‘rare’ occurrences and I WANT to be able to carry concealed to give me a chance to be that ‘rare’ occurrence where I successfully defend myself instead of ending up injured, raped or dead.
Notice they implicitly acknowledged that she used her gun *successfully*? IOW, successful use of the gun results in a dead robber.
However, the whole sentence is BS as it is not extremely rare.
“...But the fact is that this scenario is an outlier..”
Dear Nina E. Vinik:
The woman is alive. The perp is dead, and won’t victimize anyone else.
Concealed Carry Saves Lives. Case closed.
Only God can guarantee safety and the sum of risks is unquantifiable.
When you lack an argument, call something an 'outlier.'
But even if it is an outlier, where's the problem? If we had legal gun owners using their weapons every day then all of the US would be a war zone.
This is super woman. How did she get a concealed carry in Chicago, a super human feat?
The correct response to Harvard statistics is: if a gun can be used to save just one life, it’s worth it. Liberals use that argument for gun control over and over.
I agree - sorta. CCW doesn’t “guarantee” my safety, but it sure as hell makes me “feel: safer. (I thought libs were all about feelings, nothing more than feelings...)
There are numerous problems with the authors approach.
One of the most obvious is that the FBI UCR only catches about 20% or less of justified homicides.
The other is her bias. She has made the choice to be unarmed. She *has* to take the stand that having a gun is more dangerous than not having a gun. If she admitted otherwise, she would have to admit she has made a serious mistake about the nature of reality. It is very hard for an adult to do that.
Her fantastical option is to remove all guns from society, so she will not have to worry about being attacked by someone with a gun.
That is how many leftists *think*. In impractical, fantastical, extremes based on false assumptions about reality.
The sequence goes like this:
I don’t like guns, or want to learn about them.
Therefore, I don’t want anyone to have them.
Therefore, make a law outlawing them.
Problem solved!
Just vote, and magically, the “problem” will go away!
I thought Chicago banned concealed and carry guns? If so, the teen probably thought she’d be an easy mark. I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who attempts to rob people at gun point.
A 2015 Harvard study analyzing data from the National Crime Victimization Surveys found that self-defense gun use is rare — victims use guns in less than 1 percent of contact crimes.
The characterization that defensive firearm use is "rare" is only in relation to the amount of "contact crimes." What is left unsaid is that there is a lot of "contact crimes" and that even at just 1% that is still on the order of millions of defensive firearms uses every year. Millions.
That same year, there were more than 9,000 criminal homicides involving a gun, compared with just 265 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm...
Note two things here. One, they are only looking at homicides, not non-lethal uses. Most defensive firearms uses do not involve killing the criminal. In fact the vast majority don't involve firing any shots at all. The second very carefully crafted part here is that they restrict their data to private citizens. No-doubt they are discounting any off duty law enforcement uses - while off duty law enforcement are often carrying and users of their firearms for self defense or defense of others. I'll bet you they also discounted uses by anyone who was a private security guard, private personal security, or anyone else they could reasonably (or not) excluded from their "private citizen" label. (eg. maybe even former military) All this to skew their numbers.
Ok, I said one paragraph but I just have to take a shot at one more statement - can't leave this one hanging out there:
In recent years, many states have relaxed their concealed carry laws, on the theory that concealed-gun carriers deter crime. But there is no credible evidence that permissive laws prevent or deter crime...
Really? No credible evidence? There are multiple studies that say exactly the opposite - that increasing private firearms ownership reduces violent crime, while reducing private firearms ownership increases crime. Multiple studies. The fact that they choose to brush these off as not credible is their own willful spin, not reality.
The entire article seems to be put together like this. Very carefully constructed and worded to sound irrefutable and convincing. But it is about 99% pure BS.
The left wants to take guns from non-violent people and leave them in the hands of violent criminals so they can waltz right in and take what is “rightfully” theirs from their “oppressors.”