Responses to an anti gun "statistic"

[mr hanky]

So the other night at work I had a fairly in depth conversation about guns and self defense. One of the guys there, says he is "pro gun", except the following,

Now bare in mind, I thought I did a fairly good job countering this crap, I just want your thoughts:

-"65% of the time in a self defense situation your gun will be used against you." He added, ..."if you are sleeping and somebody breaks in, you won't hear them and they will have the upper hand on you while you go for your gun. Or if you wake up when they are on top of you and your guns under your pillow, they will see you reach for it and take it and shoot you with it."

First of all, I think that is horse$#%^, and second of all how could you ever measure or prove that 65% "stat"? He says it is from "law enforcement agencies" web sites as well as "Field and Stream" its "everywhere" he says.

Do you guys have any sources or comments to totally debunk that "statisitc?"

-Also he thinks that guns shouldn't be in schools, except for trained peace officers, because all it would do is escalate the situation. Or if a teacher trained in self defense with firearms carried, a student would take the gun. Any sources or comments to counter those thoughts?

-Last item of business, He said as well that more guns would mean more access to steal guns for criminals. I told him about some statistics proving crime went down after anti gun laws were repealed and he said that statistics don't mean anyhting because you can manipulate them any way you want. I suppose except for his "statistic."

Any thoughts on these issues?

Your comments are appreciated.

Chase
RKBA

 

[foghornl]

Three words....

Weapons retention training

 

[Baba Louie]

http://www.guncite.com/
I've never seen the 65% number, only the Kellerman 43% and I believe it is debunked in the above link. Might be nice if he'd share his "law enforcement agencies" web sites with you/us to do some more learnin'. Under "Defensive Gun Use" look up "Is my own Gun...", Under "Gun Violence" look up "Gun Supply Myth"

As to the school situation, he might be right in that just having a gun with/on them and with no other training in handgun retention or hand to hand, there probably are students who would take teacher's gun if they thought they could... but that's just my speculation. Lack of respect for elders and such being what it is in today's schools.

Relative to more guns mean more crimes, read up on Lott's "More Guns Less Crime". Also look up Kopel's essay(s), he wrote a very nice piece on 'what if there were no guns" (title of essay escapes me).

Hope that helps lead you to some more useful ammo in your battle of wits.

 

[jdkelly]

...you don't need him lying to you.

Tell him that if he can't show you where he found that static, then it's bull, and you don't need him lying to you.


Respectfully,

jdkelly

 

[ckyllo]

the first one is the world without guns and the second one is another one is a good one I found looking for the first.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml


http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.html

I know that my house that the effort it would take to break in would either wake me or my 2 dogs and give me plenty of time to grab my firearm.

if you ever get in the women shouldent carry since they may be easily disarmed arguement. My CCW trainer had a standing offer to pay $1000 for a documented case of a women just giving up her gun and getting killed buy it. he never had to pay a dime!

 

[RavenVT100]

if you ever get in the women shouldent carry since they may be easily disarmed arguement. My CCW trainer had a standing offer to pay $1000 for a documented case of a women just giving up her gun and getting killed buy it. he never had to pay a dime!

It's a ridiculously sexist statement.

 

[griz]

If you follow the logic of the "it will be used against you" statement, you have to conclude that the police and military should not have guns either. I suspect that your friend doesn't really believe that. Tell him that not everything on the internet is true.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I've read damn near every study related to gun control and self-defense I could find and I've never heard of the 65% statistic. Ask him for a link or some source more substantial than "Field & Stream". If it is all over the place as he claims, then he shouldn't have any trouble producing it.

 

[MrMurphy]

Israeli schools have had trained, and armed teachers, as well as volunteer parents, guarding them since 1974 or so (the Ma'alot school killings). Nobody's ever tried to do anything to them, because they're all Army trained, and packing at LEAST a pistol... most have access to an M1 carbine, Uzi or M16.

 

[Mulliga]

if you are sleeping and somebody breaks in, you won't hear them and they will have the upper hand on you while you go for your gun

Better than not having any gun at all to go to.

 

[migoi]

I'm thinking...

Mr. 65% needs to provide a demonstration while being covered with a squirt gun filled with red kookaid (5 minutes before an important meeting, or course).

migoi

 

[ckyllo]

It's a ridiculously sexist statement.

by no means was it ment to be. it was more the opposite! No one has given him a documented case, not a single one, of it ever happening. although it happens on a tv show or movie several times a week.

http://www.plusp.com/classroom/lesson30.php

it is an article reprint that shows that IMO it is harder to disarm a female than a male. she took a serious beating and never lost control of the firearm.

 

[RavenVT100]

No, I meant that the claim of "women are more likely to be disarmed" is a sexist statement. It makes a broad generalization about a whole group of people, soley on the basis of their gender.

 

[Tom Servo]

Gary Kleck, Point Blank. pp. 120-126.

In less than 1% of all self-defense cases was the gun taken away by a criminal. Out of that 1%, it was used on the civilian less than 50% of the time. So realistically, we're looking at 0.5%, not 65%. Big difference.

This comes down to a "preaching to the choir" mentality that the antis have, which I despise on an intellectual level. They can distort or just plain make up a "statistic," and folks will swallow it without checking or questioning it. Kellerman's 43% rule was debunked decades ago, and yet you'll still see it used in newspaper articles today. Usually the same ones who write about "Glock revolvers" and the like.

That's the biggest uphill battle for us--willful ignorance, intellectual laziness, and sheer gullibility on the part of an impressionable public.

 

[Shane333]

Utah teachers are allowed to carry on campus as long as the gun is always on their person. There are some public universities here trying to defy the law, but they're fighting a losing battle.

Anyway, since elementary and high school teachers, with CCL, were allowed to carry we haven't had a single incident of a teacher being disarmed. Once again the anti's are appealing to emotional arguments instead of logic or historical facts.

 

[juggler]

No, I meant that the claim of "women are more likely to be disarmed" is a sexist statement. It makes a broad generalization about a whole group of people, soley on the basis of their gender.

I don't get it Are you saying that men are more likely to be disarmed? That the ratio is even?

I thought it was a correct statement, along the lines of saying men are stronger. There are exceptions, but they are not the norm.

I personally know of two women who can fight very well (one is an instructor), but they are not as strong as I am by a long shot. And the level of training and practice they put in is not the norm either.

Just had to comment on the knee-jerk PC statement.

 

[Harry Tuttle]

It is quite possible he was exposed to a Brady Bunch meme that has lodged in his psyche.
That huge of statistic is not from "Field and Stream".
It would only exist in antigun propaganda.

 

[BerettaNut92]

-"65% of the time in a self defense situation your gun will be used against you." He added, ..."if you are sleeping and somebody breaks in, you won't hear them and they will have the upper hand on you while you go for your gun. Or if you wake up when they are on top of you and your guns under your pillow, they will see you reach for it and take it and shoot you with it."

Um, and your coworker thinks you'd be better off without a gun how?

 

[Daniel T]

Just had to comment on the knee-jerk PC statement.

Good lord. It was not a knee-jerk PC statement.

Look, saying that men are stonger than women on average is a true statement. Somehow leveraging that into "women are more likely to be disarmed than men" is sexist, and absurd. A woman does not have to be as strong as a man to pull a trigger. Besides, it's not even true on any appreciable level, as Eric F's Kleck quote shows.

 

[Waitone]

He made the assersions, he should provide documentation.

-"65% of the time in a self defense situation your gun will be used against you." He added, ..."if you are sleeping and somebody breaks in, you won't hear them and they will have the upper hand on you while you go for your gun. Or if you wake up when they are on top of you and your guns under your pillow, they will see you reach for it and take it and shoot you with it."

A while back we had a serial rapist prowl a local university. The guy was good. Second story entry, daylight, waited in closets for extended time watching the show. Forced the victim to take a bath / shower in his presence to do away with evidence. This guy ran LE nuts. They never got a crack at him, Problem ended when he raped a student who just happen to have a pistol under her pillow. One shot to the boiler room and quite a few cases were closed.

I have no tolerance for sexist argumentation.

 

[RavenVT100]

Look, saying that men are stonger than women on average is a true statement. Somehow leveraging that into "women are more likely to be disarmed than men" is sexist, and absurd. A woman does not have to be as strong as a man to pull a trigger. Besides, it's not even true on any appreciable level, as Eric F's Kleck quote shows.

Precisely. Asserting that women are more likely to be disarmed is to imply that they are somehow less able to prevent an attacker from getting close enough to disarm them than men are. It has nothing to do with physical strength up until that point.

 

[Mikul]

Why do cops carry guns if they're more likely to have them taken away from them? The military would be far safer without guns for the same reason.

 

[juggler]

OOPS!! Not the direction I was going at all. Mary Ann will out shoot me at pins, any caliber. She is cruising at skeet, I am still working on getting a 100.

I focused on the word "disarm" as in physical contact. If BG is out of reach he's got as good a chance of going down whether it is a male or female finger on the trigger.

My point was that once you get into the bad breath range the advantage shifts.

 

[Havegunjoe]

It's a myth.

Having your gun taken away and used against you is a myth used by the gun grabbers. It rarely if ever happens, even to a female. There is a famous case of a woman named Sammie Foust who was attacked in her home. She used a little .25 claiber handgun a friend had given her to kill her attacker but not until he had beaten and cut her almost to death.

When the police came and tried to pry the gun from her hand they thought they would break her fingers she was holding it so tight. It kept her attacker from getting the gun too. Even though she didn't even know how to fire the gun before the attack it was her lifeline and she was not going to give it up.

 

[Standing Wolf]

...more guns would mean more access to steal guns for criminals.

By that same flight of illogic, we should all drive beaters, never buy expensive watches, use only elderly, battered computers, et cetera.

The root cause of crime is criminals, not the stuff they steal.