More likely to get hurt or killed while carrying a firearm?

D

dlh

New member
I was informed today that those who carry are four times more likely to be hurt or killed than those who are not carrying. Does anyone know where this information came from? It was told to me by an anti gun person.

Both I and my wife carry.
Thanks for any info on where this stat came from.
 
Its a stupid statistic. It is the same as you are more likely to get in a car accident opposed to someone that dosnt drive.
 
Injured in attack.

Injured in attack.

The last figures I saw are that if you are robbed and not carrying a Pistol you will be Injured 35% of the time.

If you are robbed and HAVE a Pistol the chances are Reduced to 17%. Half!

Of course there are Obvious Dangers to Carrying a pistol. To many for me to mention here. So: if you chose to carry you MUST KNOW what you are doing.

It is not a Video Game. There are no second chances.
 
dlh said:
I was informed today that those who carry are four times more likely to be hurt or killed than those who are not carrying. Does anyone know where this information came from? It was told to me by an anti gun person.

Both I and my wife carry.
Thanks for any info on where this stat came from.
Click to expand...

It was told to you by anti-gun people, there is your answer. If you don't cross the street you are less likely to get run over. :pleasantry:
 
It is worse than that. As a medical professional I have to deal with colleagues whose only experience with firearms is the medical and public health literature the large body of which is very flawed. The entire public health approach to gun violence is fundamentally flawed as it tend to look at firearms (a tool) as a causative agent. This is often directly at odds with criminology literature which tends to look at the criminal as causative agent. Guns in the Medical Literature -- A Failure of Peer Review
Here us a decent review which makes that point.
 
Lies and more lies

So did you see the actual numbers, did you talk to the actual people.

they are lies....But that is not my major concern, the concern is that you hesitated and that makes me think that you are not comfortable carrying your gun and responsability.

Remember the numbers do not lie, it is the people that do statistics that are the liars.

One thing is for sure. A weapon is not a warranty to save someones life. It is not a 100% protection. It is your mindset and will to win that carries you out of harms way.

I think that Col Cooper said it very well...
Having a gun does not make you armed, as much as a guitar makes you a musician.

Carry with responsability and you will be ok, if you ever need to pull it out, make sure you make it count the first time.

and to close this...remember you can beat the rap, but you are still taking the ride downtown... sadly but true.:sarcastic:
 
So lab rats are 100% more likely to get cancer from Scientists then non lab rats. Warning labels should be affixed to Scientists.
As for the stats...........you really already answered your own question.
 
mappow said:
So lab rats are 100% more likely to get cancer from Scientists then non lab rats. Warning labels should be affixed to Scientists.
Click to expand...

The risk of a lab rat getting cancer caused by a scientist's actions are WAY higher than double the risk of wild or domestic rats.
 
:sarcastic: I have some great ideas. Statistically some model cars are stolen and used in crimes so lets ban them. Statistically some kinds of knives are used to commit murder. Ban those as well. Statistically planes have been used as wepons so ban the kinds of aircraft that were used on 911. Statistically people are beaten to death so force all people to register their fists. Lets ban rental trucks because there are statistics showing they have been used in bombings. Statistics show gasoline has been used as a weapon so lets ban gasoline. Statistics show that spoons are used to eat so lets ban spoons because they help people get fat. Statistics show the back seat of a certain Senators car to be very unsafe so lets ban the back seats in cars belonging to US Senators. Lets ban all firearms so the crimminals will turn in their guns so everybody will be safe. Now if you will excuse me Im off on the yellow brick road to see the Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Unless a house falls on me.
 
Many of the factors that go into such stats are fundamentally flawed. They assume that the deaths/injuries would never have happened without a firearm present and that's just not true. Of the suicides, domestic incidents, and crimes of passion, most of those would have occured even without a gun. Somebody doesn't just decide to kill themself or their spouse, etc. just because there's a gun around. There are plenty of other ways to get the job done in the absence of a firearm. A kid in the Philly area just murdered his parents and brother....with a knife. It may be more convenient with a gun but that's about it.

Also, how many of the people killed or injured were involved in dangerous activities, i.e. crime?? And the accidents?? I'd be willing to bet that most of those people were negligent at best or untrained idiots at worst. Social Darwinism at it's most dangerous. I'm pretty sure none of my guns are going to come alive in the middle of the night and try to kill me.......but I'll double-check the lock on my safe tonight just in case :biggrin:
 
Yep statistics can appear to show two different things and still be correct.

Going to use small numbers so as not to hurt my brain..lol

Let's say one year 1000 people ride motorcycles and out of them, 200 receive head injuries from an accident.

The next year 2000 people ride motorcycle and out them 300 receive head injuries from an accident.

Ok..In year one 20% of people that rode motorcycles received a head injury. In year two 15% of people that rode motorcycles received a head injury.

But if you leave out the total number of riders and only count the injuries, 200 to 300 was a 50% increase in head injuries from year one to year two. Although the over all percentage dropped 5%.

Dang...head still hurting a bit... my main point is, you can make statistics say about whatever you want...it just depends on what data you feed in to them (or leave out).
 
Thanks to all for the info

Thanks to all for the info concerning the thread on "hurt or killed while carrying".
Special thanks to Treo and Doc Mustang for the references. Very interesting.

dlh
 
I am too old a tired to read these reports over again but as I remember it the stats are greatly skewed because a lot of the injured were gang bangers.
So for an analogy..... If you are in the Military and carry a fully automatic weapon you are more likely to be killed or injured then if you are not carrying such a weapon. Now that is a fact.
So let's look a little closer to this reasoning.
If you are not required to carry such a weapon you probably are not on the front lines.
Now looking at it this way does the first statement actually make sense?:no:
As good Ol' JC Hillen used to say.... "Figures don't lie but liars do figure!"
 
So I say let those who want to believe Mr. Kellermann's stats stay unprotected in their homes. And let them stop trying to 'protect' the rest of us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 181 (members: 0, guests: 181)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,523
Messages
610,661
Members
74,992
Latest member
RedDotArmsTraining

Share this page

Back
Top