Violence Policy Center Study: “Guns Rarely Used for Self-Defense”

(courtesy vpc.org)

The vast majority of Americans listen to one radio station: WIIFM. What’s In It For Me? Call it selfish. Call it basic human nature. The fact remains that most people address the “issue” of firearms freedom from a personal perspective. If they consider a firearm an effective form of personal self-defense, they don’t support civilian disarmament. Gun control advocates know this. That’s why they attack any suggestion that a firearm is an effective form of personal self-defense. Despite the obvious fact that a firearm is an effective form of personal self-defense. So they spread anti-gun agitprop like this, enabled by their statist friends in the mainstream media, like rawstory.com  . . .

Personal safety is one of the most-cited reasons to buy a gun. But a new study challenges the assumption that firearms are often used for self defense.

The Violence Policy Center found that a very small proportion of firearm homicides can be attributed to so-called justifiable situations. Just one gun death per every 32 criminal gun killings happened in self-defense scenarios in 2012, the most recent year for which data is available. And, while gun advocates argue that they want a firearm handy in their house in case of an intruder, just 0.1 percent of the justified attacks involved property crimes.

“The [National Rifle Association] has staked its entire agenda on the claim that guns are necessary for self-defense, but this gun industry propaganda has no basis in fact,” Josh Sugarmann, the executive director of VPC, which conducted the review, said in a statement. “Guns are far more likely to be used in a homicide than in a justifiable homicide by a private citizen. In fact, a gun is far more likely to be stolen than used in self-defense.”

We’ve tread this ground before. Measuring justifiable homicides to determine the frequency of defensive gun uses (DGU’s) is entirely misleading. It’s like measuring the number of lottery winners to determine the number of ticket buyers.

Simply put, the vast majority of defensive gun uses do not end up with a dead perp. As wikipedia.org reminds us, the annual number of DGU’s varies widely: “Low-end estimates are in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year, while high end estimates reach of (sic) 4.7 million incidents per year.” The fact that there aren’t 55k justifiable homicides per year — and certainly not 4.7 million dead perps per year — tells us something other than homicide is happening. And it’s a good thing, not a bad thing.

In its effort to diss DGU’s, the Violence Policy Center’s report tells us that “In 2012, there were only 259 justifiable homicides involving a gun. For the five-year period 2008 through 2012, there were only 1,108 justifiable homicides involving a gun.” It must be said: only? A thousand people successfully defending their lives and (perhaps) the lives of other innocents by shooting and killing their assailant is a positive result. As the antis say, if it saves just one life . . .

“Purchasing a gun may help enrich the firearms industry, but the facts show it is unlikely to increase your personal safety,” Sugarmann said. “In fact, in a nation of more than 300 million firearms, it is striking how rarely guns are used in self-defense.”

Hey Josh! It stops being “unlikely” and “rare” when it starts being you. Even if we acknowledge that fatal DGU’s are rare, the VPC should consider the possibility that the prevalence of personal firearms in the United States might have something to do with the lack of violent crime and, thus, the rarity of justifiable homicides. Not that they will. But they should.

comments

  1. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Other than not getting the results wanted and saving a life with a gun, can anti-gunners name another reason why they should not support lawful self defense?

    1. avatar anonymoose says:

      Probably because they want criminals to prey on people more so that people will become more reliant on a predatory government that is only interested in extending its tentacles around everyone’s throats all over the world and not actually protecting and serving this nation?

      Also, most Defensive Gun Uses don’t result in anyone’s death, especially when handguns are concerned (and most of those don’t even involve anyone having to shoot- pulling it out is enough to ward off the attacker), so bringing up murder rates to look for “justified shootings” is intentionally missing the point.

      1. avatar Scoutino says:

        Antis keep repeating that guns are only good for killing people. Hence the “logic” here: no dead body means no DGU.

  2. avatar anonymoose says:

    But I must ask you, Violence Policy Center, WHERE DA F—IN HOOD AT?!

  3. avatar mike oregon says:

    Again with feeling; “Don’t cloud the issue with facts I know how I feel”. What is a “fact” anyway? It feels like something you just made up.

  4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “Guns are far more likely to be used in a homicide than in a justifiable homicide by a private citizen.” — Josh Sugarman.

    Entirely true. And?

    1. avatar BDub says:

      Tautology at its finest.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      “Guns are far more likely to be used in a homicide than in a justifiable homicide by a private citizen.”

      So let’s push the stats a little bit. I have no love lost for gang-bangers and lose no sleep when one or more of them dies as a result of being a ballistic back-stop, so long as no innocents nearby are injured, however…

      While their chosen lifestyle frequently puts them in harms way from other like-minded punks doing stupid things, in each and every one of those shootings that apparently make up a large percentage of “gun homicides” in the statistics, ONE OF THOSE SHOOTERS WAS FIRING IN SELF DEFENSE.

      And sorry Kudos – kudos to you for reaching the same conclusion before I did. I had not read down the list of comments far enough to find it before I wrote this.

      1. avatar dlj95118 says:

        …never considered that point.

        Thanks!

  5. avatar BDub says:

    The continued existence and use of guns is a self-evident proof of their effectiveness as tools of self-defense….FULL STOP.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      You, sir, win the Intertubez for the month!

  6. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    I have in my lifetime had two instances where my having a firearm stopped an attack. One of those involved five attackers who immediately lost interest in myself and my companion and left the scene when it became clear to them that I was armed. I did not draw my suddenly visible firearm, or shoot any of them, much less shoot them to death. According to Josh Sugarmann that incident never took place.

    Clearly the Violence Policy Center is a ghoulish bunch of bloodthirsty violence advocates who want people who carry firearms for protection to kill someone at every possible justifiable provocation!

  7. avatar Pascal says:

    I will argue that even in Chiraq, the use of a gun is used in defense more than attack. As one gangbanger shoots at another, the one shooting back is just shooting back in self defense.

    * Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year — or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]

    * Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]

    * As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]

    * Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of “Guns in America” — a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]

    * Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that “only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The ‘error rate’ for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.”[7]

    * Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. [8] Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as “Saturday Night Specials.”

    https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

    The study authors already had a conclusion before they put pen to paper so to speak.

  8. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Demonstrating that …a very small proportion of firearm homicides can be attributed to so-called justifiable situations… does not …challenge[] the assumption that firearms are often used for self defense.. The former is a false premise for the latter.

    On the order of 2/3 of all (known) defensive gun uses do not involve the discharge of the defensive firearm. Of those that do involve discharge of the firearm, few attackers are injured, and (far) fewer yet are killed.

    1. avatar BDub says:

      Exactly. I think the problem is they start all analyses from with the assumption the only purpose of a firearm is to kill. Therefore, if the firearm is not being used to kill, it is not being used at all.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        That’s not the problem at all. The problem is that Sugarmann is basically a liar. He knows damn well that DGU’s do not necessarily involve someone being killed, but he uses this particular inapposite statistic as cover for his false statement that DGUs are rare.

        1. avatar BDub says:

          You’re probably right about Sugarman, but I get the distinct impression that most anti-gunners do fall into this classification. They can’t all be informed and malicious deceivers, most have got to be useful idiots.

  9. avatar Chris Morton says:

    “The Violence Policy Center found that a very small proportion of firearm homicides can be attributed to so-called justifiable situations.”

    And there we have the glaring example of their craven dishonesty.

    To hear them tell it, if somebody kicks in you front door, sees your firearm and runs like hell, you haven’t actually “defended” yourself since nobody DIED. Even if you SHOT somebody, you haven’t defended yourself if nobody DIED.

    Funny thing is, they don’t seem to measure any OTHER means of self-defense by that standard. I’ve REPEATEDLY asked anti-gun cultists whether you’ve ONLY defended yourself with the martial arts if you’ve choked, punched or beaten somebody to DEATH. Crickets. Likewise, I’ve asked them whether they recommend Sarin instead of pepper spray.

    Anti-gun cultists are pathological liars. The only ones who can hold a candle to them are Holocaust deniers.

    1. avatar the ruester says:

      Ooh those are good. Here’s another; most robberies commited with guns don’t result in a shooting, either. If the robber typically doesn’t shoot the victim, why would you expect the victim to typically shoot the robber?

      And another; criminals often use guns to intimidate their rivals. When a criminal holds his gun in one hand while punching someone with the other, he is relying on the unfired gun to prevent retaliation. Just like when a law abiding citizen relies on the mere display of an unfired gun to prevent an assault.

  10. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Suppose someone created a “paralysis buzzer” that a woman could use at contact distance to temporarily paralyze a rapist and enable her to escape. If rapists successfully raped women 50 times more often than women successfully used “paralysis buzzers” to stop rapes, does that mean we should discourage women from using them?

    What if criminals discovered that they could use those “paralysis buzzers” to temporarily paralyze a woman long enough to bind her and then rape her? How many times would criminals have to misuse them, compared to how often women would use them successfully, before we would ban women from having and using them?

    Hopefully, everyone would agree that it doesn’t matter how many times a criminal misuses a “paralysis buzzer” compared to how many times women use them successfully to stop rapes: a woman should be able to use them no matter what.

    Now, if you agree with the above, you have just conceded that it doesn’t matter how many times a good person uses a self-defense tool properly compared to how many times criminals misuse those same self-defense tools improperly. Therefore, it doesn’t matter how many times a criminal misuses a firearm. If good people want to have a firearm for self-defense, that is their right. Period. Full stop.

    1. avatar BDub says:

      That was a sublime fisking, sir.

  11. avatar BLAMMO says:

    I don’t need a gun.
    I have never needed a gun.
    I hope I never need a gun.
    And, in all likelihood, I will never need a gun.
    However, should I ever need a gun, I had better have a gun.
    Therefore, I have a gun.
    No one ever wished they didn’t have a gun.

  12. avatar Stoopid1 says:

    Another person with a Vigina, so what?

  13. avatar DaveL says:

    So let me see if I have this straight:

    1) If you use a gun in self-defense, but do not kill your assailant, that just goes to show guns are not useful for self-defense.

    2) If you use a gun in self-defense and you do kill your assailant, that counts as a “gun death” and goes towards justifying gun control.

    3) If you are unarmed and killed by an assailant with a gun, that too counts as a “gun death” that justifies disarming other responsible civilians.

    4) If you are unarmed and killed by an assailant who does not use a gun, then there’s no gun death and it goes to prove the effectiveness of gun control.

    Did I miss anything?

    1. avatar Patrick says:

      No, you pretty much hit all the main points. Thanks

  14. avatar DocHendo says:

    A place called the “Violence Policy Center” is living up to the moniker. By their (greatly skewed) view the only way to justify the use of guns is by killing more bad guys. You heard it here first folks, we need to greatly increase the percentage of deaths via “justifiable situations” to appease those in favor of increased violence apparently. Looks like we should be “shooting” for 100% of all deaths by firearm being justifiable in their eyes, and THEN we will finally prove that guns are used defensively.

    On a related note apparently ALL infections have to be stopped via antibiotics to “prove” the efficacy of them. In trials only a few cases are effectively treated, so how on earth could we apply the effect of the study to the totality of the problem? Like the number of licks it takes to get to the tootsie-roll center of the tootsie pop, the world may never know… MORONS.

  15. avatar BigDaveinVT says:

    In other news a Chicago bar tender is beaten, run over by a taxi and dies from his injuries.

    I bet if he were still alive he’d wished he had a gun.

  16. avatar Paul says:

    Who cares what Josh Sugermann says or doesn’t say? We spend entirely too much time preaching to the choir when we should be spending our time converting non gun owners to gun owners.

  17. avatar Wright says:

    Same BS. Different day.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Yes, that’s the other lie here; none of this is “new”, I’ve read this same argument months, maybe a year or so, ago. They just updated their non-applicable statistic.

  18. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    So, responsible, peaceful people with guns rarely have to actually kill someone to defend themselves with a gun. Good to know.

    Wait, that’s an argument *for* citizen arms, isn’t it? It’s like these guys didn’t think it through.

    Probably, they were too busy celebrating the tremendous reduction in violence when a criminal, thug, whack-job or terrorist in mid-assault sees a gun, and just stops. Tremendous reduction in violence there.

    Wait, that’s another argument *for* citizen arms.

    The discretion shown by this number vs. the immense numbers of assaults & worse shows tremendous restraint and presence of mind among armed citizens. You know, compared to the caricature of the jacked-up tacti-cool Rambo wanna-be’s who just can’t wait to spew hot lead from their kitted out phallic symbols.

    Oh, wait. That’s another argument *for* arms among responsible, peaceful citizens.

    What side are these paid shills agit-prop / fake-science -ing on, again? Really Bloomie didn’t get his money’s worth on this one. The authors should watch out. He may have his armed guards shoot them. (That is, unless they are armed to protect themselves, which could give them an – er – quietly-displaying-a-weapon-thus-discouraging-further-aggression chance.)

  19. avatar tdiinva says:

    Here in the echo chamber facts matter but outside not so much. So instead of wasting energy on facts and logic pro-Second Amendment folks need to employ appeals to emotion to wit:

    VPC seems only to care about disarming law abiding citizens but not criminal gangs. This makes it clear that they, like BLM, are in league with the gangs. Any claim that disarming the law abiding will cause gangs to be disarmed can be mocked by saying “just like making drugs illegal keeps them off the streets.” Plus we too can wave the bloody shirt by questioning their lack of concern for every violent incident not committed with a firearm.

  20. avatar Donimator says:

    The researchers skipped some of the dots.

  21. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    Better to have a gun and not need one…

  22. avatar Patrick says:

    “justified attacks” exist?!?!

  23. avatar Paul says:

    The homicide rates (and overall rates of violent crime) in western European countries, which have strict gun laws, are far lower than in the US, where we have very lax gun laws.

    That’s either because we Americans are a lot more violent, or it’s because we have a lot more guns.

    Now, I’m not actually in favor of stricter gun laws in this country – for a variety of reasons. But for goodness sake, let’s pull our collective heads out of our butts and stop pretending that guns somehow make us safer.

    1. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

      Or YOU could pull your head out of your butt and realize that It’s not about the tool – it’s about who wields it and in what context.

      If a person decides to take a hammer and bash your head in, that does not make the hammer a bad thing or suggest that we should require background checks for hammer owners. If a drunk driver hits you with a car and kills you, that does not mean that we should ban cars.

      Honestly, this stuff is not rocket science.

      1. avatar Paul says:

        There are plenty of hammers and plenty of cars in Europe, but western European countries still have much lower murder rates than we do.

        The reason is because we have ready access to guns, and they don’t.

        You’re right: It’s not rocket science…it’s much simpler than that.

        1. avatar Vhyrus says:

          South America by and large has the same type of strict gun control laws that Europe has, yet their murder rate dwarfs ours by comparison. Unless you are going to suggest it’s because they somehow smuggle guns from the US to Brazil, you might want to rethink your argument.

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          ‘Paul’, we have *proven* doubling the number of guns in America haven’t made us less safe, since the homicide rate has dropped in half from 20 years ago when there were half as many guns.

          Twice the number of guns, half the rate of gun violence.

          Source, Center for disease control:

          http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/foghorn/guns-violence-united-states-numbers/

          Facts. Those pesky, inconvenient facts…

        3. avatar Scoutino says:

          Paul, if western Europe was every bit like the USA except for gun accessibility you might have a point. But it’s not. Look at stats about WHO commits wast majority of those murders here. Than look at what part of population is not present in Europe. See any overlap?
          Take away ghetto gang violence and the rest of the country has about the same murder rate as western Europe. But that is raceees, so let’s blame tools instead.

          Who wants gun will get gun – legally or not – just like drugs. Gun control laws only disarm law abiding people who are not inclined to kill each other anyway. On the other hand thug is dangerous even empty-handed. Maybe we should concentrate on criminal control rather than gun control.

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      Paul:

      When European countries had ready access to firearms their murder rates and violent crime rates were lower than ours so what is your point? The UK had a lower murder rate in 1920, when guns were common, than they do now, so again what is your point?

      You can’t make comparisons unless you adjust for demographics. If the US had the same demographics as Western Europe we would have lower crime rates than Western Europe. You can verify this by looking at places like Vermont or Illinois outside of Chicago.

      1. avatar Paul says:

        “When European countries had ready access to firearms their murder rates and violent crime rates were lower than ours so what is your point?”

        At no point in the history of any European country has the populace had the ready access to firearms that we Americans have today.

        1. avatar DaveL says:

          Provably false. It was a matter of walking intuitive a shop and paying cash, or ordering by mail. Much easier, in fact, than it is in the US today.

        2. avatar Paul says:

          “Provably false. It was a matter of walking intuitive a shop and paying cash, or ordering by mail. Much easier, in fact, than it is in the US today.”

          Wrong.

          In no European country could you ever, at any point in its history, have had as easy access to a firearm as you can today in the US.

          But that’s beside the point. To reiterate the point I made in my original comment on this thread: I’m not in favor of increased restrictions on gun ownership in the US. But it is ridiculous in the extreme to pretend as though our high rate of gun ownership makes us safer.

          It may make us more free, which is why I’m in favor of private ownership of firearms. But it certainly doesn’t make us more safe.

        3. avatar tdiinva (now in Wisconsin} says:

          It is demonstrably true. The UK had no restrictions on the purchase of any kind of firearms until 1920. Same for France, Scandinavia, Italy and the low countries.

          The US has a very low crime rate until the 1910 and then it rose with the influx of Odessa and Sicilian gangsters.

        4. avatar Paul says:

          tdiinva;

          I can’t imagine that you actually believe that pre-1920s Brits had anything even approaching the same access to firearms that Americans have today.

        5. avatar Scoutino says:

          In many European countries you could just walk into a store with cash and leave with gun after couple of minutes. Today’s American reality is much harder. Believe it or not.

    3. avatar Chris Morton says:

      “The homicide rates (and overall rates of violent crime) in western European countries, which have strict gun laws, are far lower than in the US, where we have very lax gun laws.”

      However we’ve historically had a LOT fewer Zyklon-B murders and most of our synagogs aren’t museums without congregations.

      There are only three avocations in which a total IGNORANCE of history is an ASSET:
      * Holocaust denier
      * marxist-leninist
      * anti-gun cultist

      1. avatar Paul says:

        “However we’ve historically had a LOT fewer Zyklon-B murders and most of our synagogs aren’t museums without congregations.”

        Have you ever heard of a “strawman argument”?

        I ask because your comment is pretty much the dictionary definition of it.

        1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

          No it is calling out your hypocritical double standards.

          Ignoring our demographic and geographic differences which is what you Euros do to justify your arrogance that you do everything right when you clearly don’t your continent has a history of genocides, dictators, and world wars. Funny how us gun-toting Americans never had those problems.

          Yea I would rather deal with the false premise of “gun violence” than be a government worshipping slave at the whims of PC correctness and democide. Tell me again how the Paris and Norweigan atrocities never happened with numbers that are nowhere near ours.

          So since you are in Western Europe here are a few gun-related “incidents” with which that I am sure I am missing some more that show how demonstratably wrong you are.

          Zug, Switzerland, Sept. 27, 2001: A man whose lawsuits had been denied murdered 14 members of a cantonal parliament.

          Tours, France, Oct. 29, 2001: Four people were killed and ten wounded when a French railway worker started shooting at a busy intersection.

          Nanterre, France, March 27, 2002: A man killed eight city-council members after a council meeting.

          Erfurt, Germany, April 26, 2002: A former student killed 18 at a secondary school.

          Freising, Germany, Feb. 19, 2002: Three people killed and one wounded.

          Turin, Italy, Oct. 15, 2002: Seven people killed on a hillside overlooking the city.

          Madrid, Spain, Oct. 1, 2006: A man killed two employees and wounded another at a company that had fired him.

          Emsdetten, Germany, Nov. 20, 2006: A former student murdered eleven people at a high school.

          Tuusula, Finland, Nov. 7, 2007: Seven students and the principal killed at a high school.

          Naples, Italy, Sept. 18, 2008: Seven dead and two seriously wounded in a public meeting hall.

          Kauhajoki, Finland, Sept. 23, 2008: Ten people shot to death at a college.

          Winnenden, Germany, March 11, 2009: A 17-year-old former student killed 15 people, including nine students and three teachers.

          Lyon, France, March 19, 2009: Ten people injured when a man opened fire on a nursery school.

          Athens, Greece, April 10, 2009: Three people killed and two injured by a student at a vocational college.

          Rotterdam, Netherlands, April 11, 2009: Three people killed and one injured at a crowded café.

          Vienna, Austria, May 24, 2009: One dead and 15 wounded in an attack on a Sikh temple.

          Espoo, Finland, Dec. 31, 2009: Four people shot to death at a mall.

          Cumbria, England, June 2, 2010: Twelve killed by a British taxi driver.

          March 6, 2012, killed 7 in Toulouse, France.

          Jan. 7, 2015 Charlie Hebdo shooting

          Funny how all those and more happened with your strict gun laws and superior “civilized society”. Then don’t forget the numerous bombings that occur all over your continent like the recent one in Belgium.

        2. avatar Paul says:

          Raol;

          I’m an American. If you had bothered to read the thread you would’ve figured that out.

          Nevertheless, pointing out that guns have been used to commit murders in Europe neither supports the argument that access to guns makes us safer nor does it change the fact that western European countries have a much lower murder rate than we do.

  24. avatar Anonymous says:

    Just one gun death per every 32 criminal gun killings happened in self-defense scenarios in 2012…

    If it saves one life… we should do it.

    1. avatar BDub says:

      Watch me make the numbers sound better……”just 10 gun deaths per every 320 criminal gun killings happened in self-defense scenarios in 2012.” TADA!!!

      “Das like 10 times as many as he said!!!” – uninformed voter.

  25. avatar Anonymous says:

    Purchasing a gun may help enrich the firearms industry, but the facts show it is unlikely to increase your personal safety,” Sugarmann said.

    It’s unlikely that i’ll need to protest a corrupt and tyrannical government right? Still I would like to have that right available right? Right??? I would also like my right to self defense and the 2A should I need it as well. Ridiculous Sugarmann. The criminal acts of others should have zero bearing whatsoever on my individual rights.

    1. avatar BDub says:

      Filling the newspapers with idiotic drivel may help enrich the publishing industry, but the facts show it is unlikely to increase your personal freedom.

      Well, I guess that’s an iron-clad argument against the 1st amendment then. Case closed.

  26. avatar tfunk says:

    So, let’s play his game. In 2012 there were supposedly only 259 justifiable homicides, the only counted form of self-defense, in a nation of over 300,000,000 guns. If each one was from a unique gun, that would mean .00009% (pretty much zero) of guns were used in self defense each year, according to VPC. So we should just get rid of them because they are never used in self-defense, only to murder. But we need to get rid of guns, because with 10,000 murders a year, each with a unique gun, that comes out to .0033% of guns are used to murder…oops, that’s basically zero, too. Maybe I should try a different argument…look at this baby!

  27. avatar pod says:

    They think if they keep saying it, it’ll be true.

  28. avatar Shel says:

    The FBI says that in 2014, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 444 felons. By the VPC’s “logic”, that means that in all of 2014, all law enforcement only prevented 444 crimes…

  29. avatar NoVA2A says:

    Headline for this study also could have read: “Defensive Gun Use seldom results in a homicide” which undercuts one of their arguments.

  30. avatar Stuki Moi says:

    Being a Christian, I don’t hold the Koran in nearly the same regard as some seemingly do, but it is certainly an infinitely more authoritative source, than the “studies” that comprise the religious texts of progressivism.

  31. avatar Chier DuChien says:

    For every American murdered with a gun, 25 Americans are murdered by incompetent heathcare professionals. VPC should concentrate on THAT issue first and when they’ve fixed it, then maybe work the next issue in line, like drunk drivers.

  32. avatar Will Drider says:

    VPC SAID: Just one gun death per every 32 criminal gun killings happened in self-defense scenarios in 2012.

    That actually means LE could not prevet those other 31 murders. Thats 31 people that through government restriction or personal choice, did not have a adequate means to protect themselves. If the dead could speak from beyond the grave would they wish they had a gun? It woud have givin them a chance to live and the answer is simple. Famiies cry about their loss and and blame guns, WHY didn’t the victim have a gun and the training to protect themselves and the children they are responsible for. Its not too many guns, its about not having one when you need it most.

    It is a personal choice to be an easy potential victim. If its the governmental that restricts you: change the laws and politicians.

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      “VPC SAID: Just one gun death per every 32 criminal gun killings happened in self-defense scenarios in 2012.

      That actually means LE could not prevet those other 31 murders.”

      My standard response to anti-gun cultists who claim “you don’t need a gun because the police will ‘protect’ you”:

      1. The police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
      2. The police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
      3. The police have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals to whom they are not assigned as bodyguards.

      The police don’t protect individuals. They draw chalk outlines around individuals who are unwilling or unable to protect THEMSELVES.

      Unless you’ve got a bodyguard detachment like Rahm Emmanuel and Bill de Blasio, if you’re not willing and able to protect YOURSELF, you’re just not going to get protected AT ALL. Anybody who tells you different is a LIAR.

  33. avatar Brian is a liar. Pay him no heed. Everything is fine. says:

    Is that %^%^& so? I guess the guy with the syringe who boasted about how he was going to be murdering me and my mom and forced my door open on several occasions, part of the “Neighborhood Watch”, ran away after he did it and called the cops screaming “TERRORIST” because of my genitals. Not because he saw the barrel of a gun pointed at him. See, if your genitals are above a certain size, this will magically repel any assaults on your person. Like magnetism. This is how nature intended it, only the inferior do not have magic powers that repel violence eminating from their genitals, and they shall pay.

  34. avatar Hill Country Dog says:

    Boy can this statement be interpreted in a lot of different ways.

    “Just one gun death per every 32 criminal gun killings happened in self-defense scenarios in 2012”

    Does that mean they only counted defensive gun uses when it resulted in criminal charges for the defender?

  35. avatar IdahoPete says:

    So is the VPC suggesting that people defending themselves from criminals should make sure to kill the criminal? That would seem to contradict their purported mission of “preventing violence”. If you stop a criminal assault without having to fire your gun, aren’t you preventing violence? Just askin’ ….

  36. avatar Roger Cain says:

    And common sense will tell you …

    Armed police can very rarely intervene in time to save the victim from deadly assault.
    Police are only well-versed in the “bag’em and tag’em” procedures.

  37. avatar Pg2 says:

    Same arguments again, and I’ll continue to point them out…. Adverse vaccine reactions are allegedly rare(no studies performed to determine this), but even if they’re rare, its 100% when it happens to you or someone in your family, and the effects cannot be undone.

  38. avatar petru sova says:

    The sad facts are that many people who do not own guns believe the propaganda.

  39. avatar LordGopu says:

    I knew from the headline they were only going to be measuring justifiable homicide.

    Good to know self defense =killing the other person.

    Better tell all those liberal soccer moms putting their kids in the local karate McDojo that they need to get the sensei to teach their kids the touch of death or they won’t be able to defend themselves.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email