Gun more likely to be turned on owner?

[Vern Humphrey]

The Tueller Drill is predicated on the attacker being armed with a knife. If you have a shotgun, the counter is a short thrust while pulling the trigger.

 

[Justin]

Even if the argument can't be attacked directly, it would be worth pointing out that none of the studies claiming that a weapon is more likely to be turned on its owner have ever controlled for level of firearms training and/or proficiency nor have they ever taken into account the mental willingness of the intended victim to defend him/herself.

 

[mljdeckard]

Guaranteed? You know how to tell who is full of bull on these boards? ANYONE WHO SPEAKS IN ABSOLUTES. If you think a shotgun in the hands of a female is guaranteed to change hands, come into my house and try to take one from my wife. The best defense against this happening is if she grabs the carbine instead. Then there's no way you're taking a shotgun out of her hands.

If you are told; "A gun in the home is more likely to be used against the occupants than a bad guy.", ask for a source. They might say, "Everyone knows that." Say, "I obviously don't." It is unlikely they will actually name Kellerman, because next to any reference to Kellerman is the paragraph explaining how his data is flawed. (And by 'flawed', of course we mean fabricated.)

 

[bdickens]

No one who repeats this fairytale of the armed citizen's gun being taken and used against him can ever seem to be able to cite any occurences of it actually happening.

 

[MagnumDweeb]

Speaking as someone who has taken guns out of the hands of two attempted muggers (two different incidents) the reality is quite possible. Where the data be found I have no clue.

A good defense is a good offense in this matter as I see it. Go after whoever has stated this information and find out who their sources are. And do your research thoroughly, you'll probably end up going through a chain of citations to other sources being cited by other sources. Always be prepared for the reality that the person saying this is either full of garbage or is mistating a key fact or leaving out some crucial information. Remember the 2005 statistics saying 30,000 people killed by guns had nearly half of those deaths caused by suicide and with some tacit state by state reseach you could probably find that more than fifty percent of the remainder had been confirmed to be linked to drug dealing or gang violence. The rest is probably a mix of self-defense by LEOs or civilians and some stray murders here and there that couldn't be confirmed to be drug or gang related or just some good folk getting done wrong unfortunately.

To quote Reagan, sort of, "It's not that my Liberal friends are ignorant, it's that they know so much that isn't true." that's the eye I take to anything that comes out of the mouth of a Anti or liberal. Or to quote Publius Syrius, "Trust not those who claim to know the truth, but those who seek it." Yeah I know kind of Locke or Humes but still very true when you are doing you're research. Good Luck.

 

[ranger335v]

It is a fact that nearly all honest people are reluctant to shot anyone else, no matter the situation. Those who think that if they just display a firearm and it will cause the villian to depart are frequently right, but not always. '

No public records exist to show the number of times the display of a defensive weapon stops the perp but it's a LOT! It's happened to my own wife twice and a daugher once.

It is the occasional determined troll who takes the weapon away from those who can't bring themselves to pull the trigger and they pay the price for that reluctance. That's a fact.

That fact does not obliviate the undocumented successes but it does give the statistics saying the guns have been taken away and used against the owner. It's a fools argument, signifiying that if the owner was simply defenseless he/she might not have been harmed. Obviously not true!

As Professor John Lott found, just the sight of a defense weapon stops a lot more attacks than gun take-aways. If the owners had the mind-set of shooters it would stop a lot more attacks and prevent recurrances too!

 

[Hoppy590]

some one said it best

if they are so easy to take away from me, il just take it from him, and the gun will be passed back and forth until the cops show up

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

A shotgun, esp in the hands of a female is guaranteed to be taken and used on the owner, especially if the thug is even slightly aggressive and has any element of surprise.



very few guarantees in life and they fall off sharply after puberty

 

[Vern Humphrey]

A shotgun, esp in the hands of a female is guaranteed to be taken and used on the owner, especially if the thug is even slightly aggressive and has any element of surprise.

Can anybody cite an actual instance of a bad guy taking a shotgun away from a homeowner, male or female?

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

nope but its "guaranteed"

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I agree with you. It's never happened but it's "guarenteed" to happen. Some day, in an alternate universe.

 

[Guns and more]

Here's what never shows in the anti statistics. Guns used for defense but never fired. Anti's will use evidence showing that family members are more likely to be killed than bad guys. What is left out is the crime that doesn't occur because the potential victim was armed but didn't fire.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Calm down guys.

All of ya attacking No Fear's comments probably ought to go back and read them again.

No Fear said: A shotgun, esp in the hands of a female is guaranteed to be taken and used on the owner, especially if the thug is even slightly aggressive and has any element of surprise.

A shotgun has a "handle" (known as a super long barrel, even 18" is long compared to a handgun) the bad guy can use to grab it out of your hands (using a twisting action will guarantee that the thug takes your shotgun). This is the direct reason that short barreled shotguns were banned in 1934 (unless you get the cost prohibitive license). The gun banners view self defense as an OFFENSIVE ACT, and they painted guns as offensive and evil. Thus, the beginning of federal bans in 1934, was crafted and aimed at guns that were more effective for self defense (i.e. guns with short barrels).

Now, this is the internet after all. And we can't see facial expressions or hear voice tone. But that certainly comes across to me as a witty blend of sarcasm and a rant on the Act of 1934.

Now I could be wrong. But if anyone's curious as to just what he meant, there's an easy way to find out. Just ask him.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

A shotgun, esp in the hands of a female is guaranteed to be taken and used on the owner, especially if the thug is even slightly aggressive and has any element of surprise.

That's a very bold statement...

 

[longdayjake]

the data used to make this argument relies almost completely on suicides. There are statistically more suicides than any other form of firearm death and supposing that you own the firearm you use to kill yourself, the statement could be true. The same is true for cops or atleast it was when I was in the academy 3 years ago. Statistically they are more likely to kill themselves then to be shot by a bad guy.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

jake hits the best point as well as they count folks up to 23 as "kids" killed. i gotta call gangbanger on gangbanger fatakities accelerated darwinism

 

[Vern Humphrey]

There are statistically more suicides than any other form of firearm death

Correct. And I say if a man wants to kill himself so bad he's willing to put the muzzle of his gun in his mouth and pull the trigger, he'll find a way to kill himself, even if there was no such thing on this earth as a gun.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

and its his choice none of my buisness

 

[Vern Humphrey]

and its his choice none of my buisness

Funny how the people who support "physician-assisted suicide" are so opposed to gun-assisted suicide.

 

[coloradokevin]

A shotgun, esp in the hands of a female is guaranteed to be taken and used on the owner, especially if the thug is even slightly aggressive and has any element of surprise.

Sorry, I have to disagree with you on this one.

I've used the long guns (shotgun, AR) quite a bit at work in the course of my duties, and I personally think that weapon retention is easier with the shotgun and AR.

How you carry the firearm is important, and how you deal with someone grabbing it is important. But, there are no guarantees that a female is going to lose that weapon. Moreover, what guarantees that the female hasn't already dispatched the bad guy by the time he is within reach of the weapon?

 

[Sean Dempsey]

I think everyone misinterprets what the "your own gun used against you" is supposed to imply.

I think what it means is that between a criminal who is jonesing for another rock hit, who has already assaulted and robbed dozens of people in his life, has probably been to prison, has probably violently attacked and succeeded in harming innocent people... this guy is probably more likely to have the balls/stupidity to grab your gun and shoot without thinking than you are.


He might not value his well being, he just wants another hit off the stem. So he's not going to weigh the options of rushing you to take your weapon and quickly just killing you so he can get his 20 dollars. Whereas if the Badguy has a weapon, how many thoughts are the victims going to be considering?

So yeah, I can totally see the argument for having your weapon used against you. A rabid jackal is scarier to me than a sane lion.

 

[BullfrogKen]

You know, I've have suspicions folks don't actually read through entire threads before responding.


Again, guys. I think No Fear's statement was a tongue-in-cheek comment. At least, given to totality of the post, that's how I read it. If you're not sure, feel free to ask him what he meant.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I think what it means is that between a criminal who is jonesing for another rock hit, who has already assaulted and robbed dozens of people in his life, has probably been to prison, has probably violently attacked and succeeded in harming innocent people... this guy is probably more likely to have the balls/stupidity to grab your gun and shoot without thinking than you are.

Such people don't have a long life expectancy.

Again, cite an instance where a home invader has taken a gun away from an armed citizen and used it against him.

 

[everallm]

What.....People might engage mouth before brain.....Say it ain't so.....

(This is an evil, sarcastic, ironic remark...... )

 

[bdickens]

You know, I've have suspicions folks don't actually read through entire threads before responding.

I get that feeling myself sometimes.