this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2025

30 points (89.5% liked)

Conservative

conservative@sh.itjust.works

542 readers

205 active

0 users here now

We are a community dedicated to discussion surrounding the political right.

People of all political views are welcome here, but we expect a high level of discussion from everyone.

Rules:

-Good Faith participation only.

-Stay on topic.

-Follow instance rules.

-Only post news articles with the original headlines.

-Please interact with this community if you want to downvote.

-Absolutely no homophobia, transphobia or misgendering anyone.

founded 3 years ago

moderators

SatansMaggotyCumFart@sh.itjust.works

SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world

SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world

SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.social

Concealed Handguns Create a Climate of Fear, Gun Industry Research Reveals (www.rollingstone.com)

submitted 1 year ago by SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world to c/conservative@sh.itjust.works

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/34826497

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (27 children)

Maybe the people who should be afraid of concealed handguns are the criminals who might be shot by them. That's the whole point. Defensive gun usage statistics are sparse whether due to people being scared to report what may be seen as a crime on their part, or it not being a tracked statistic in their jurisdiction.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/

hideshow 27 child comments

[–] Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (19 children)

Unless you are in a position where you are aware something worth defending yourself with a gun is happening, and you have enough time to access that gun, and ready yourself, you will likely not get to use it to defend yourself. In fact, if someone, willing to do a stick-up, notices something that tips them off to you having a gun, you become a more desirable target, guns are expensive, and easy to fence. They will have their gun drawn before you really notice they are there, then it is very unlikely trying to defend yourself will do anything but get you shot.

parent

hideshow 19 child comments

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago* (12 children)

You'd think that, and then a guy pulls a knife on you and your GF in a walmart parking lot. You have ample time to get to your belt, in fact you have so much time that when you touch the grip you can give him the "you sure?" look without even pulling it, and he can go "sure not" and turn and walk away to rob someone else. Happened to me, went in and bought my bread instead of whatever that guy had in mind.

Just because sometimes you're in a Kobayashi Maru and phasers won't help doesn't mean you never need phasers or that they never help.

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (11 children)

This conversation is not that it NEVER happens, it is addressing why the stats where someone defends themselves with a gun are so low. In practice, defending yourself from armed thieves just gets you killed, or badly injured, the vast majority of the time. If that person had a gun, was standing out initial grabbing distance, and you hadn't pulled your gun yet, you going to touch that grip would have likely just gotten you shot, and left bleeding in that parking lot, as the person ran off.

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago* (10 children)

Debatable. Define "low" and define what we're counting as defensive use of a firearm.

The lowest estimate for Defensive Gun Use (hereafter referred to as DGU) we have is 100k/yr, done by Harvard and only using verifiable police reports where the defender killed the attacker. That entirely discounts situations like mine, in which the attacker was scared off by the mere presence of a firearm without a shot being fired. 100k/yr is still more than our gun deaths/yr, so if that's "low" then our gun deaths incl homicide, accidents, and suicide are too. And even if it is low, I bet the individuals in question are happy to have had it when they did need it and could use it.

The other commonly cited estimate is by Gary Kleck and John Lott, and used to be on the CDC's website (not sure if still is, but it can be found.) They estimated between 500k and 3mil DGU/yr, and includes situations like mine. Whether or not you want to discount them, the numbers are still higher than I'd call "low."

Of course drawing from the drop is bad practice, nobody advises it, but you positioning it as a guarantee is clearly not the case at least 100k times/yr. In real reality, defensive gun use happens all the time.

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

Daniel Webster SC.D.; Jens Ludwig Ph.D. 2000 is a paper just dismantling the methodology, and data, behind the Kleck-Lott study. There are, apparently, a lot of studies picking this one apart, but this is the one I was familiar with before this. Basically they manufactured their results to get the conclusion they wanted. Even the best studies acknowledge from suffering from things like the telescoping effect, significantly. With Kleck and Lott, they often make arguments even their own study refutes, but they are hoping most people never actually read it, especially people who have training on reading academic papers. This article has a pretty good, bullet point style, break down of how they report what their study says vs what it says, and some of the underlying issues of it, and other studies of it's type. Here is a paper discussing how this data is collected, confirmed, and reported, and why things like the National Crime Victimization Survey, always come up so much lower (recently mid 80k range). Basically a study on methodology in this line of research.

The Harvard number you cite comes from studies that estimate 60-120k DGU's per year. They also caution that going to the higher end requires some very loose interpretation, and inclusion, of data. Their research leads them to the conclusion that MOST reported DGU's stem from escalating fights, from arguments, between two people, and not from someone targeted to be a victim, like a robbery, etc., defending themselves. The majority of DGU's in home held weapons are used to intimidate family, and close friends, rather than third party assailants, and the defenses here are super varied, and often make the person reporting the DGU is the criminal actor. Here is what Harvard has to say about the subject.

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Again no matter which you choose to go by, it's hard for me to call it "low." I suppose to a point that's subjective, but even your lowest number, 60k, is on par with our total gun deaths/yr including accidents, homicides, and suicides. So, if it's low than that's low too.

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

You gloss over the context of where most of that number comes from. It doesn't come defending yourself against some third party who has targeted you for some form of victimization. It comes from people reporting how they used their gun to intimidate someone who they were arguing with, as defending themselves with a gun. Mostly people close to them. Which normal people don't actually consider a valid reason to say they defended themselves from crime.

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

I mean most kidnappings are from family or friends, not strangers. Most rapes are from family and friends, not strangers. It's not outside of the realm of possibility to actually have to defend yourself against family or friends. In fact if it follows the trend it'd be more likely than having to defend yourself from strangers. Hell my friend's house was broken into and he was pistol whipped by a masked dude, and everyone in the house said the same thing, "It was [Name Redacted], I would recognize that voice anywhere." He had been our friend, y'know, until the armed home invasion. None of us had a gun at the time though unfortunatly, but had they one and it was used, it would have been used to defend against said "friend." Not a stranger, a "friend." Another friend in that same neighborhood pulled up to yet another mutual friend to (admittedly) sell him 2oz of weed, and that mutual friend stabbed him. That's two people who were supposedly our "friends." The one that happened to me at walmart was a stranger, but as the data and my empirical evidence suggest, actually having to defend yourself from someone you know is more common, so, yeah I'm not surprised by that and never argued the opposite. My argument was that regardless of one's familiarity with the attacker, DGU happens at a higher rate than "low."

(Home invader did time in prison for robbing a gas station with a shotgun after this. Idk if he's out now or what, that was the last I heard of him. No clue what became of stabby either, but stabee is doing fine now, took up a trade.)

Duh "most DGU stems from escalating arguments," if an argument gets heated enough that someone needs to defend themselves however, they still need to defend themselves. Sure "letting the argument get to the point where uncle Steve pulls a knife" is "socially undesirable," but if uncle Steve pulls a knife, he's still pulled a knife. Whether or not you find it "socially undesirable," if it happens then it happens. Not everything that takes place on this earth is "socially desirable." While you should take steps to deescalate the situation, those don't always work, maybe Steve likes meth (which is also socially undesirable, yet prevalent), whatever the reason, if they don't work and Steve pulls the knife, as far as I'm concerned it's more socially undesirable for me to be stabbed, uncle or not.

Using a gun to intimidate people you're arguing with is called a crime, not defensive gun use. I'd be curious to know if the judges they questioned as to the legality were in the jurisdictions in which the DGU took place, or were they in another location with other requirements like a duty to retreat that doesn't exist everywhere in the states. A judge in WI or NJ could have a different opinion on the same case than a judge from MO or OK, what's legal in the latter is not in the former.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

It is called a crime, and if you read further into what harvard talks about this.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

We read a random sample of defensive gun use news reports for the Gun Violence Archive in 2019. We created a typology of 13 categories, including escalating arguments, drug-related, gang-like, romantic disputes, store robberies, unoccupied vehicle theft, unarmed burglaries, and home invasions.

See the more I read the more I question, they don't seem to even understand the threshold for legal use of deadly force, most of these would be technically illegal, even for some where the defense itself was above board.

If you're the one escalating, that is illegal. Can't legally have guns and drugs at the same time. Gang activity often involves crime while not being illegal itself. Romantic disputes would be legal if the partner immanently threatens your life, then good, otherwise illegal to use gun. Store robberies is above board, as long as they're armed. Using deadly force to protect against unoccupied vehicle theft is illegal, against armed carjacking is legal. Unarmed burglaries would be illegal, you're allowed to use normal force (mace or fists) not deadly force. Home invasions is legal, IF you're in a state with castle doctrine, if you're in a state with a Duty To Retreat law, you're required to surrender the house if possible.

Their methodology here, to include things that are straight up crimes as "defense," is questionable. Furthermore they seem to be using the same methodology questioned in the Kleck and Lott numbers, phone surveys, but when they do it it's ok:

We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17 years, which asked questions about gun threats against and self-defense gun use by these young people.

So we'll just ignore that people 12-17 can't legally buy nor carry a gun which would undeniably skew the numbers this way anyway (their parents can buy them one, they still can't carry, and just how common do you think it is for parents to buy their kids guns?) The Kleck and Lott study's voracity is called into question due to the self reported and unverifiable nature of the phone survey, basically "people could be lying." Meanwhile 12-17yos always tell the truth? Horse hockey.

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home. We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime;

And "intimates" never lie either.

other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

Only what like 45% of people even own guns? And of those that do a significant portion just have a shotgun in a safe for hunting. DUH, more people use "what they have." Bet the guy defending himself with a baseball bat wouldn't have turned his nose up at the AR15 beside it, given the opportunity.

This study is no better than the Kleck and Lott study, and 60k is still more than "low."

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

So, if all of these reports are so bad, why believe the 60k number is reasonable?

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

It's the lowest we've got, so I'm using it to give you the "advantage" in your "low" argument, but it's still not "low."

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

All of these reports use data from sources such as liars, and have built in factors that make it askew. So why believe any of it at all?

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago

Sure, why indeed?

I'm inclined to believe the number falls somewhere in the middle of these estimates, personally. And that's still not low.

parent

[–] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

That's why it's concealed. The robber doesn't know who has a gun, unless they're banned, then they're safe.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

You might be surprised how often it is easy to tell someone has a concealed gun, if you know what you are looking for.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

Yeah. With lengthy observation that is NOT going to happen with a robbery. This isn't a heist movie.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

It doesn't even take lengthy observation most of the time. Most people are bad at concealing that they have a gun, especially in a way where moving doesn't make it obvious. There is also the issue that the better something is concealed the slower it is to pull, and more obvious it is you are trying to access it.

parent

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

This just leads to people bringing weapons with them when they commit crimes as they may also need to defend themselves.

To be fair though if you live in a high crime area there might not be a good answer for how to protect yourself.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

And this is the problem. There isn't a good answer for the victim, at the time. You are unlikely to be in a position to effectively defend yourself, even if you have a gun. The better concealed the gun is, the longer it takes to pull, and the better the response time with the pull, the more likely the thief is to know you have it and act on that knowledge.

This is why anyone not bullshitting you tells you to do the thing that is least likely to get you killed, and that is just peacefully hand over the stuff, and let them go, then call the cops, and let them do nothing. The real way to reduce crime is to fix systemic ills.

parent

[–] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

I used the Forbes article specifically because most will be from what you will call biased sources, but it's an issue where both sides have their own narrative and looking at the data that one side has while discounting the other will get you lies.

https://ammo.com/research/defensive-gun-use-statistics

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world [S] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I know that you’re more likely to shoot friends or family with a defensive home gun then any home invaders.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago

This is accurate, and I used to make it a key part of my own decision-making, until I thought about how bad the - statistically - average American is, at almost everything. I hope I don't need to cite references.

Ultimately it is, and should largely remain, a personal choice, and I'll note that there are no statistics for the number of (thoughtful) people who believe they should own a gun, and come to realize they were wrong, before disaster. I've known several of these, among many gun owners, known no disasters.

Gun ownership isn't for everyone. The broad truth of this statistic is important for each individual to know, but not a great rule of thumb for each individual to base an important decision on, if that makes sense.

parent

[–] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Because you're millions of times more likely to be interacting with family and friends than get broken into. One's a daily occurrence. Also a lot of studies which claim gun ownership is more dangerous to gun owners are deliberately using suicides as part of their numbers.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world [S] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don’t think you can suicide your friends and family.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

I was referring to another common talking point in the same vein which shows deception.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago

You might know your own mental state enough to know you won't shoot yourself but thats a bold claim to make for family members that live with you as well. I'd rather not take the risk.

parent