Can someone disprove this study for me?

sajidakh · May 9, 2021

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091743515001188

I'm not smart enough to understand why but I'm sure this analysis is skewed so the elitist elite can academically prove that a gun for self defense is more dangerous than being a victim.

Results:
Of over 14,000 incidents in which the victim was present, 127 (0.9%) involved a SDGU. SDGU was more common among males, in rural areas, away from home, against male offenders and against offenders with a gun. After any protective action, 4.2% of victims were injured; after SDGU, 4.1% of victims were injured. In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property.

Conclusions
Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that SDGU is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.

Sealion · May 9, 2021

This study completely ignores the incidents where no crime is reported, e.g. the criminal approaches me, I present my firearm. Criminal departs. Nothing reported. Also, an incidence of 0.9% is far too small to base any conclusion on.

slsc98 · May 9, 2021

Academia masturbation.

They all scurry like roaches when a light comes on when Dr. John Lott and CPRC arrive on-scene .... https://crimeresearch.org/

TheOriginalMexicanBob · May 9, 2021

I'm sure the methodology and stats used are skewed to the desired conclusions...but it would probably take someone with the facts like John Lott to disprove the study quickly. Other than Lott it would take someone with knowledge where to access quickly facts and time to disprove the study which will likely accepted out of hand by the Left.

Even if there is some veracity to the study...what the author ignores is the fact the being able to have and use a firearm in self-defense is enormously important to the person needing it. Statistics don't show that.

Uncle Duke · May 9, 2021

No one has asked them to embrace a firearm for self defense. If their conclusions with this or any study are such that they wish to forego one, then so be it.

What is undeniably slanted here, is the expectation that they will somehow usurp the power to decide and to make my choice for me.

Anotherpyr · May 9, 2021

You need the full paper. The abstract presented definitely jumps to a conclusion with little evidence and kind of refutes it’s own conclusion.

.1 percent less injuries
Less property loss than most who took protective action. More than when some weapon other than a gun was used, but compared to the whole (55%?) was much better.

They mention that most SDGU occurs against attackers with a gun. No mention of how many non gun protective actions were against an attacker with a gun.

Overall, a good example of confirmation bias.

It’s easier to carry a gun than a sword or baseball bat.
There is little data on SDGU 127 out of 14,000 events. No mention of how many non-gun weapon protective actions in the data.

K31 · May 10, 2021

Agree, you'd need more than the abstract to get the definition of some of this. But a couple of conclusions that can be drawn:

- Over 50% of the sample they are using, were incidents outside the home: "SDGU was more common among males, in rural areas, away from home".

- Sounds like most who took "protective action" "lost property" but in most states you can't use deadly force to protect property so they are making this sound like a failure when in fact, it could be read as "Yeah, they took my car but I'm still alive". "55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property".

Is there any distinction in this between, police/security being the one who used "SDGU"? Is there any distinction between the one using "SDGU" being a criminal themselves? Seems pretty strange that most incidents involving "gun" use for defense were outside the home. Does this even take into account homeowners announcing they have a firearm or displaying it to deter a criminal? From the sound of it, again without knowing the definitions or cases, half these could be drug deals gone bad.

Pale Ryder · May 10, 2021

The success rate for treating lung cancer with chemo is around 35%. Would the writer forego that treatment. Doubtful. It’s always better to have options.
Go check out the “Armed Citizen” section in American Rifleman magazines. Must be thousands of examples over the decades.

PaFrank · Sep 17, 2021

If you have a Twitter account, go ask John Lott. He will give you the best possible answer you could ever imagine. If you don't know who John is, well, you should. Google him.

Pinecone · Sep 23, 2021

Hmmm

Of over 14,000 incidents in which the victim was present, 127 (0.9%) involved a SDGU. SDGU was more common among males, in rural areas, away from home, against male offenders and against offenders with a gun. After any protective action, 4.2% of victims were injured; after SDGU, 4.1% of victims were injured. In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property.

So, while a small amount, their own data shows lower injury rate. And they do not, at least in the summary, discuss the LEVEL of injury.

They also are comparing only those with "any protective action." What about the injuries to those who took no action?

DanGuy48 · Nov 19, 2021

Pinecone said:
Hmmm

So, while a small amount, their own data shows lower injury rate. And they do not, at least in the summary, discuss the LEVEL of injury.

They also are comparing only those with "any protective action." What about the injuries to those who took no action?

Thank you. I was rereading that and thinking, wait, how did they draw that conclusion when their own report shows a small benefit?

twybyll · Nov 19, 2021

The full paper can be found here:
https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-cont...-The-Epidemiology-of-Self-Defense-Gun-Use.pdf

I won't comment yet because I haven't had time to read it, but wanted to make it available to others if they didn't have a copy.

I believe the data they used for the study can be found here, and not limited from 2007 to 2011.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/data-collection/ncvs#publications-0

Can someone disprove this study for me?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

sajidakh

Active Member

Sealion

Ultimate Member

slsc98

Ultimate Member

TheOriginalMexicanBob

Ultimate Member

Uncle Duke

Ultimate Member

Anotherpyr

Ultimate Member

K31

"Part of that Ultra MAGA Crowd"

Pale Ryder

Ultimate Member

PaFrank

Member

Pinecone

Ultimate Member

DanGuy48

Ultimate Member

twybyll

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Share this page