doctor x-ray emergency room
Shutterstock

By Robert B. Young, MD

There is a constant stream of articles coming from establishment medicine “experts” that denigrate our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms along with the individual focus our patients deserve in order to be protected from social priorities that would override that.

One that’s received a fair amount of press was an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times by an emergency physician in San Luis Obispo, California, Steven Sainsbury. (See the SAF’s Lee Williams if you can’t get past the LA Times’ paywall.) It’s titled “Thinking of Buying a Gun for Self-Defense? Don’t Do It”.

To begin with, the title itself lies behind the looking glass. What else would you buy for self-defense if not a gun? Nothing is more effective (following avoidance), affordable, and usable for all ages and conditions of people, with a wide variety of individualized choices available.

Poor Dr. Sainsbury claims to have treated hundreds of gunshot wounds in his ER and “not one” ever, was “by a law-abiding citizen in self-protection.” Hundreds of criminal shootings versus no lawful self-defense shootings? I’d worry about his perceptiveness if I had to seek care from him.

I’m prepared to believe that no shooting victim has presented to him admitting that he was shot in the course of committing a crime. But considering the consensus about 1-2 million defensive gun uses each year in America, it’s just not possible that a busy ER doc has never treated one. Though we can be sure he hasn’t known he’s encountered the 95% of DGU survivors who didn’t even need to fire. Likewise, his belief that a gun in the home is more likely to harm a resident than a criminal is a long-quashed myth beloved of Moms Demanding Attention and legislators attacking rape victims.

At best, this is a physician opining based on personal anecdotes instead of from data—another jump onto the fading bandwagon of medics promoting gun control.

Sadly, it’s still mainstream to respond with “a heightened sense of fear” even in Alabama of all places, when someone walks into a church service with a holstered pistol. (Yes, from the LA Times again.) The author even refers to the Sutherland Springs church massacre, which was so bad because the only armed respondent was across the street instead of at the church. The same story line concluded much differently in White Settlement, Texas.

Of course, pseudo-scientists can try to flank us by attacking ammunition via wildlife studies, as was reported in The Hill earlier this year. The main data point is that the bald eagle population growth rate has declined about 5% over the past 3 decades. Because consuming lead can harm animals (though the degree of harm from this has never been clear), the authors constructed a “hypothetical” lead-free environment that, uh, “hypothetically” might have prevented this. In science, hypotheses are developed to be challenged; they aren’t ends in themselves.

Eagles have been found dead having ingested lead pellets from ammunition, scavenged along with their typical feeding on carrion. Fewer have been declared dead by lead poisoning, and there is no correlation attempted with changes in the incidence of use of lead ammunition in the study area.

Meanwhile, their findings must be viewed against the well-documented “steady increase in eagle abundances [sic] in the northeast United States in recent years” despite a marginally lower rate of expansion. Their numbers have still quadrupled in just the past 10 years. They are competitive birds, and many more niches are occupied now than 30 years ago—so why wouldn’t the population growth rate start slowing at some point?

For a corrective based on medical science, see this month’s NRA America’s 1st Freedom magazine. An article by Suzanne Edwards, “No Doctor Should Prescribe Gun Control” quoted DRGO findings and positions very credibly. We’re glad for our organization to be referenced in this way, in the service of facts and in support of objective evaluation.

The role of doctors practicing the art and science of medicine is to provide the best care for each individual patient. It is NOT to pursue political agendas, no matter how rewarding in position, publicity or the approval of strangers.

 

Robert B. Young, MD is a psychiatrist practicing in Pittsford, NY, an associate clinical professor at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, and a Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.

This article originally appeared at drgo.us and is reprinted here with permission. 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

62 COMMENTS

  1. I don’t talk to my MD about keeping and bearing firearms. I *do* talk to her about noise and lead exposure.

      • Doctors think that their “lane” encompasses the philosophical, legal, and ideological concepts of gun ownership.

    • The quack doctor has no podium to speak and point fingers. Especially when viewing the mountains of charges levied by state medical boards of examiners against doctors, nurses and other licensed workers. Charges can range from molestation to murder and there’s not just a few bad actors it’s a surprisingly long list of bad actors from medical fields in all states. Board case disciplinary actions should be open to the public.

      Only one thing the sneaky doctor riding on the coattails of the presumed always goody two shoes medical profession can do and that is go pound sand.

  2. My doctor has never asked me and judging by the hunting pictures in his office, I doubt he will.

      • That is a good question to ask with the next purchase of NFL, NBA, or NASCAR tickets. It’s something to think about with that next Nike purchase through Amazon. One should consider such things with that next Facebook, Twitter, or TikTok post.

        • @Prndll
          That sort of talk might mean something to someone who buys from those companies. But it’s okay to say “I don’t know.”.

    • they kill more people than guns…year in and year out…but you never hear about it….

  4. Never forget….doctors (all specialists, in all industries) are the hired help.

    Never forget….all stats are the result of bias of the collector, and truthfulness of the interviewed.

    Never forget….election night 2016, the MSM disbelieved actual vote counts because the exit polls from voting locations indicated the opposite; exit polls were considered more reliable.

    • Got my first-ever moderated comment since becoming a subscriber.

      “Never forget….doctors (all specialists, in all industries) are the hired help.

      Never forget….all stats are the result of bias of the collector, and truthfulness of the interviewed.

      Never forget….election night 2016, the MSM disbelieved actual vote counts because the exit polls from voting locations indicated the opposite; exit polls were considered more reliable.”

  5. These are the same clowns that danced around in TikTok videos. They expect us to take them seriously??

  6. At my last physical I had to endure a good half hour of wokey questioning.
    Do I consider myself male, female, nobinary or something else?
    Do I consent to letting the doctor talk to me about my weight?
    Do I consent to the doctor asking me about my sexual behavior and history?

    It went on like this for longer than I was in the waiting room.
    If a doctor can’t tell me if I have balls or a vag or if I’m a fat ass or emaciated I’m not sure I want to see that doctor.

    I’m praying every night for nukes to fly. I feel the only way out of this politicized, media-made, woke hell is to bring about a real hell.

    • Wait’ll you get old Shire-man! Except for a Ukrainian immigrant doctor who gleefully talked about guns n shooting(& how evil Russia is) they’re all nosy jerks. Medicare is good but the practitioners sometimes suck…

    • latest trends are to be seen by “pretend-doctors”….just about had it with that nonsense…

  7. WWFS — what would Fauci say? Because as we all know, he is the infallible font of all medical wisdom, and we should never believe in any other physician.

  9. Teachers, doctors, politicians, is there anyone who minds their own business these days?

  10. Today is National Vietnam Nam Veterans Day. To all the Men and Women who served, suffered and died. I give Thanks for your Service and Sacrifice. To all the families who supported those Brave Warriors. I give Thanks for your Sacrifice and Well Wishes to the Memory of those you lost. Both In Country and at Home. May Peace Be With You on this day of remembrance.

  11. Well,
    There would have been more death in that Sutherland Springs church were it not for someone being there with a gun.

  12. Last Dr. who asked me about firearms was out at the gunrange on the next lane. He liked the rifle I was sighting in after mounting a scope. My range on the homestead is 500 meters, and the range I use from time to time has 1000 meters.
    However, if an MD in the office asks about anything related to what weapons I may own, I fall back on my stock answer. ” A couple more than I absolutely need. But far fewer than I want.”

  13. quote—————-Poor Dr. Sainsbury claims to have treated hundreds of gunshot wounds in his ER and “not one” ever, was “by a law-abiding citizen in self-protection.. —————-quote

    Actually the stats show self defense with a handgun i.e. a real shoot out with the victim the winner are very rare. The Doctor was probably correct when he made that statement.

    quote———-I’m prepared to believe that no shooting victim has presented to him admitting that he was shot in the course of committing a crime. ———quote

    Non Sequitur. Unlike a lot of T Tag authors Doctors do indeed read about the local news on line or in papers and talk to Law Enforcement Officers especially when a gun shot victim is brought in and in many cases has armed guards in front of his room or he is even handcuffed to his bed. I think its rather obvious he was not there for a boy scout of the year award.

    Handgun ownership associated with much higher suicide risk
    share
    Men who own handguns are eight times more likely to die of gun suicides than men who don’t own handguns, and women who own handguns are 35 times more likely than women who don’t.

    June 3, 2020 – By Beth Duff-Brown

    gun and bullets
    A new study found that men who owned handguns were eight times more likely to die of self-inflicted gunshot wounds, and women who owned handguns were more than 35 times more likely to kill themselves with a gun
    Val Lawless/Shutterstock.com

    Owning a handgun is associated with a dramatically elevated risk of suicide, according to new Stanford research that followed 26 million California residents over a 12-year period.

    The higher suicide risk was driven by higher rates of suicide by firearm, the study found.

    Men who owned handguns were eight times more likely than men who didn’t to die of self-inflicted gunshot wounds. Women who owned handguns were more than 35 times more likely than women who didn’t to kill themselves with a gun

    While prior studies have found higher rates of suicide among people who live in homes with a gun, these studies have been relatively small in scale and the risk estimates have varied. The Stanford study is the largest to date, and it’s the first to track risks from the day of an owner’s first handgun acquisition.

    “Our findings confirm what virtually every study that has investigated this question over the last 30 years has concluded: Ready access to a gun is a major risk factor for suicide,” said the study’s lead author, David Studdert, LLB, ScD, MPH, professor of medicine at Stanford Health Policy and of law at Stanford Law School.

    https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-ownership-associated-with-much-higher-suicide-risk.html

    If you own a gun, you’re more likely to get shot than if you don’t own a gun. That’s a simple fact. Even using a gun for self-defense doesn’t mean you’re less likely to get hurt, it means you’re more likely to get hurt. The NRA’s myths around gun ownership gloss over the dangers of gun ownership; it’s time we reveal NRA propaganda for what it is, advertisements to buy guns and enrich gun companies.”

    NRA myth: The NRA says having more guns makes people safer.

    Fact: Gun ownership is directly linked to higher instances of gun violence.

    A National Institutes of Health study found that for each time a gun is used for self-defense, there are 11 suicide attempts involving firearms, seven assaults or murders and four gun accidents.
    Another National Institutes of Health study discovered that owning a gun drastically increases the risk of gun violence in domestic violence cases. They found that a firearm in a home with a history of domestic violence correlates to a 500 percent greater chance that a woman will be killed.
    One study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that the odds of an assault victim being shot increased 4.5 times if they carried a gun, and the odds of them being killed increased 4.2 times.
    A study published in the Journal of Preventive Medicine found that using guns for self-defense during a robbery doesn’t lower one’s odds of being injured.

        • I was shot at before a few times. I was in other Countries at the time and there was a lot of shooting going on. Some mortars and artillery and stuff like that. I don’t think my owning a firearm here had anything to do with it.

    • dacian the stupid,

      You cite ONE bulls*** study from Stanford, dealing with suicide, and then make a litany of statements about the “danger” of owning a gun . . . without citing one single friggin’ source.

      Go away, lying liar. YOUR OWN BELOVED GOVERNMENT found anywhere from 400,000 to over 2 million defensive gun uses per year, so you are not just a stupid partisan hack, you’re a lying liar, also.

      F*** off and die, dacian, you lying liar of a prevaricating Leftist/fascist fool. We mock you because you are stupid, but you’re also a lying liar. Begone, tool.

    • I’m sorry. I was wrong. When I said this:

      “Actually the stats show self defense with a handgun i.e. a real shoot out with the victim the winner are very rare. The Doctor was probably correct when he made that statement.”

      I pulled it right out of my ass. I have no sources for it. And I doubt there are reliable stats FOR it. It’s kind of like stats with a DGU – How many DGU’s are there? Don’t know. Because a lot of the time, the perp runs away when they see a gun, and then it’s over. Events like these aren’t captured.

      When I said this:

      “Non Sequitur. Unlike a lot of T Tag authors Doctors do indeed read about the local news on line or in papers…”

      I’m sorry. I just pulled this out of my ass. How can anyone make any conclusion on anything, from a generalization like “doctors are reading the local news.” I have no idea which doctors are reading what news, or if they are reading the news at all. Thus a total generalization, and was total nonsense. Sorry guys.

      My advice to you guys, was to ignore pretty much everything written, because it was BS. Take this link for example:

      https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-ownership-associated-with-much-higher-suicide-risk.html

      I gave you this link, and then I said:
      “Owning a handgun is associated with a dramatically elevated risk of suicide, according to new Stanford research that followed 26 million California residents over a 12-year period.”

      That makes you think that owning a handgun increases the risk of suicide. But that’s totally false. This is the actual statement in the article:

      “Men who owned handguns were eight times more likely than men who didn’t to die of self-inflicted gunshot wounds.”

      Hahaha! Which is obvious right? A guy that drives a car is more likely to have a car crash than a guy that doesn’t own a car right? A guy that goes hang gliding is obviously more likely to die in a hang gliding accident, than a guy who never goes hang gliding! Haha. So it’s a bunch of nonsense. Take it with a grain of salt. Drop some ridicule. Laugh, and then move along.

      • To the fake silly Dacain

        quote—————Hahaha! Which is obvious right? A guy that drives a car is more likely to have a car crash than a guy that doesn’t own a car right? A guy that goes hang gliding is obviously more likely to die in a hang gliding accident, than a guy who never goes hang gliding! Haha. So it’s a bunch of nonsense.———quote

        The only person talking nonsense is the fake Dacian not man enough to use his own moniker.

        The article was about a deliberate act of suicide, not an accident with a car or a hand glider. Of course this is way over your head.

        • dacian, the Dunderhead. In case you don’t know it. there are many more ways to commit suicide than just a gun. Do you want to outlaw electricity, ropes, etc as well?

      • To Dacian, suicide is “willful destruction of state property” and is punishable by death.

        • “…suicide is “willful destruction of state property” and is punishable by death.”

          Nice one, that.

    • dacian, the Dunderhead, You are full of s*it like a Christmas turkey. The majority, the VAST MAJORITY of people using their firearm in self defense shows that the defender comes out on top 90+% of the time. I don’t know where you get your “statistics” from, but they are erroneous and down right wrong.

      I have yet to see anything you have come up with that even comes close to the truth. You just might want to reevaluate your approach.

      Someone said that you own a firearm? Apparently you somehow got past the background check. It’s a good think that there is a HIPPA law, or you would have have gotten one.

      • He and the rest of his stosstruppe are using ghost guns because they can’t pass the NICS check due to prior activities.

      • The defender DOES not come out on top 90% of the time or anything like mit. The surest way to get youself killed is to try to out gun the bad guy with the gun on you in the first place. You are turning a situation where the first intent is NOT to kill, because if it were then you’d be dead already, into a contest which you are almost certainly, unless you are a highly trained professional and even then the odds are no good, lose. The only way you win is to shoot first and ask questions later and THAT is against the law as a first cause. You simply cannot use a firearm against a person who is merely threatening without a drawn weapon.
        I’m very much afraid that most American gun nuts seem to be looking for any opportunity to simply slot somebody quasi- legally.

        • “I’m very much afraid that most American gun nuts seem to be looking for any opportunity to simply slot somebody quasi- legally.”

          So? It’s our country; our ways.

          Didn’t we see just yesterday, a shop owner prevailing over robbers who “came in shooting”?
          https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/security-camera-captures-gun-store-owner-opening-fire-on-two-thieves-who-came-in-shooting-video/

          If it were, or is, better to live in Europe (including the isles), we would still be there.

        • Albert Hall, I have more very bad news for you. most of the time in spite of your Leftist propaganda, the good guy with a gun comes out on top. I don’t know where you got your stats from (you don’t show any that are verifiable)but they are bogus.

          Your “shoot first and ask questions later” routine is garbage. When a good guy has to use his firearm, he already has made valued observations and come to the conclusion that it is time to act to defend himself and/or a third party. This is 99.9999999% of the time a very shocking surprise for the bad guy. At this point the bad guy has a choice. Guess what the choices are?

          Apparently you do not have reliable information just propaganda of the anti-gun radicals of which you are one.

    • Fact is studies show that if you resist a violent offender, you are less likely to be killed or suffer severe injury compared to someone who submits to the criminal.

      Most criminals are not mentally prepared to stand their ground when a gun is mentioned/drawn/used by their victim. They are cowardly parasites and don’t want to die.

      On this blog, and many others, we read of the successful putting off of criminals, even after the victim has been shot.

      It’s not hard to find reports of good guys defending against bad guys in free areas. Perhaps less likely in New York, California and Chicago were the victim would be victimized again by the local tyrants.

  14. Self defense shootings are very rare. They might make the news, but in any population of over 400 million, you will see some self defense moves, be it firearms, swords, rocks, bricks, bats, or ash trays. I would bet that just the fact that the homeowner has a firearm is enough to make them run away, so the fact you have a firearm is a good thing. A burglar does not want to have to shoot someone unless it is a targeted robbery, and that would be organized crime doing a job against another player.

    If someone decides to suicide, most of the time it is because of pain/bad health. His/her choosing the method of their own demise is(or should be) their choice. LE already checks out gun(and sometimes ammo) buyers to weed out anyone who is a danger to themselves.

    • rt66paul,

      “Self defense shootings are very rare.”

      Let me fix that for you – no they aren’t. Actual trigger pull is somewhat rare resulting in a bad guy not being shot – this is phrased anti-gun/gun-control rhetoric as “Self defense shootings are very rare.” in actuality over 7,000 times daily in the U.S. defensive gun use is successfully employed and the majority of times all it takes is for the firearm to be shown by the defender and the bad guy runs off thus no need to pull the trigger. This does not make self-defense shootings rare, it makes shooting not necessary because the bad guy ran off.

      “A burglar does not want to have to shoot someone unless it is a targeted robbery,”

      In almost 70% of the home invasions in 2020-2021 time frame, the bad guys either shot or otherwise severely injured or killed at least one occupant in a home where occupants did not have a fire arm. In homes with a firearm only 6% of the time was the bad guy(s) able to severely injure or kill any occupants.

      “If someone decides to suicide, most of the time it is because of pain/bad health. His/her choosing the method of their own demise is(or should be) their choice.”

      Over 90 percent of the people who die by suicide have a mental illness at the time of their death. And the vast majority of those mental illnesses are untreated, under-treated, or not properly treated.

      Suicide is the result of (a) mental illness (condition), not a firearm or any other method. Its not a choice even if people want to think it is. Its an overwhelming urge and driving force that can only be resisted or endured for so long before the person gives into it. People who die by suicide are not thinking clearly, and they cannot possibly think clearly because their brain is not functioning properly at the time they pass away from suicide. Their brain is giving them overwhelming signals to die. They have a chemical imbalance in their brain, are in extreme emotional pain, and their mind is saying to them, driving them, “you must die by suicide to end this.”

      A person at risk of suicide is at great risk all the time, they do not suddenly become at risk or more at risk simply because of firearms availability or the availability of any other method. They have been at risk the entire time no matter if a firearm or any other method is available. If you remove a firearm or any of the other methods from a home, the person is still at great risk of suicide. If you take the person from the home, they are still at great risk of suicide. The great anti-gun/gun-control lie for suicide is that a person who has suicide ideation is at risk simply because a firearm is in the the home or available. The number of suicide people who use the firearms method is actually very low compared to other methods, for example, around 100,000 (possibly more) committed suicide by the drug overdose method in the year ending March 2022. Plus most people who are initially determined to have used the firearms method to carry out their suicides are later determined to have been accidents or homicides.

      • to Booger Brain

        Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use
        1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense

        We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

        Hemenway, David. Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of extreme overestimates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1997; 87:1430-1445.

        Hemenway, David. The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events. Chance (American Statistical Association). 1997; 10:6-10.

        Cook, Philip J; Ludwig, Jens; Hemenway, David. The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1997; 16:463-469.

        4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal

        We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

        Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys. Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267.

        5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense

        Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

        Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun use: Results of a national survey. Violence and Victims. 2000; 15:257-272.

        6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime

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

        Azrael, Deborah R; Hemenway, David. In the safety of your own home: Results from a national survey of gun use at home. Social Science and Medicine. 2000; 50:285-91.

        May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

        May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention. 2002; 8:236-238.

        9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens

        Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.
        https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

        • @dacian,

          Your own study tells you why its false and has been debunked, with and for so many different reasons. Its because they don’t apply definitions correctly and change their meaning to suit their study instead of letting the true definitions and meanings be accounted for. This is an exploit that anti-gun/gun-control uses and how they bias such studies. I will outline one, among many, of the very obvious reasons why your study is a lie (although I know this is beyond your very limited and ignorant understanding)…

          This line right here > “Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense”

          They basically claim with that line that if a firearm is brandished and the bad guy runs away it does not count as self-defense but rather is “intimidation”. That opposing twist in definition of “intimidate” vs “self-defense” basically defines that unless the trigger is pulled its not self-defense, and that’s a lie.

          When we speak of self-defense by use of a firearm we are speaking of one of two things basically – the act and the aftermath legal plea of justification after the act…

          1. The act of defending oneself, one’s family, or one’s property through the use of force. (the act)

          2. A plea of justification for the use of force, or for the killing of another person. (the legal justification plea)

          When we speak of “use of force” in terms of self-defense and firearms we are speak of the definitions as, overall, applied in law. This is, basically > The right to use force is a right of an individual to prevent certain actions by using force to either: A – dissuade another party (the threat) from a particular course of action, or B – physically intervene to stop them (stop the threat).

          Notice the “dissuade another party from a particular course of action” part..

          The continuum of force progresses from verbal orders, through physical restraint, up to, in some cases, lethal force – but it does not mean only those, its from and in between those too – in other words, basically, the minimum amount of force (the necessary force) allowed by law to, in the case of self-defense, repel or stop the threat up to and including lethal force (deadly force). Where the rule of law holds, the general rule for application of force is that only necessary force may be used. When force is applied by an individual, the force permissible is only that which is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances.

          Warning you have, or brandishing, a firearm in the act of repelling a threat is an act of ‘use of force’ to “dissuade another party from a particular course of action” (the other party being the threat). Thus warning you have, or brandishing, a firearm is “the act of defending oneself, one’s family … through the use of force” (commonly known as self-defense) to “dissuade another party from a particular course of action” (the other party being the threat). It is an act of self-defense. If the threat is repelled by that brandishing/warning ‘use of force’ and runs away and the firearm is not fired it was the force “reasonable and necessary under the circumstances” and thus was also self-defense.

          Your study does not take that into account on purpose, and purposely and falsely re-defines such use as “intimidation”.

          Guns ARE used millions of times each year in self-defense, by both legal and morally justified definition and need. Many times its warning you have, or brandishing, a firearm to “dissuade another party from a particular course of action” (the other party being the threat). Collectively we call this ‘Defensive Gun Use’ (DGU) when such meets the legal and justified ‘use of force’ for self-defense which also includes warning you have, or brandishing, a firearm to “dissuade another party from a particular course of action” (the other party being the threat). The fact that the trigger was not pulled does not mean it was not self-defense, the very act of brandishing a firearm to repel a threat without pulling the trigger is a self-defense ‘use of force’.

          Your study is a lie. Its biased and incomplete and full of false hoods and bias, all these designed to satisfy the original title to leave an impression that is not true for the weak minded and for anti-gun/gun-control to tout.

          It is 100% fact that millions of times each year guns are used in self-defense. Over 7,000 times daily in the U.S. defensive gun use (DGU) is successfully employed for self-defense and the majority of times all it takes is for the firearm to be shown by the defender and the bad guy runs off thus no need to pull the trigger.

          Your study is false and a lie.

          note: ‘threat’ as used here is that for which the law allows a use of force to repel or stop the threat. The exact nature of the threat in the moment determines the amount of force to apply – for example (for your simple mind dacian I’ll put this very basically); if a person shoves you and does nothing else you can’t really shoot them. But if a person shoves you then starts beating on you its gone beyond simple basic assault of a shove into trying to inflict serious harm then you can probably (or maybe) shoot them (or threaten to shoot them or brandish) (consult the law in the specific jurisdictions for details. most define ‘serious bodily harm’ or some variation as the minimum point where self-defense use of force can be applied)

        • @ dacian…

          Just to point out another very obvious lie in your study, this part

          “9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens

          Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.”

          This part in particular…

          “To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals.”

          there they go again defining ‘self defense’ by firearm as only being self-defense if a criminal is shot. That is another great lie of the anti-gun/gun-control lobby and such biased studies. That redefining to support intentional bias and falsehood of the study.

          As I described above, self-defense by firearm (defensive gun use) does not always mean a criminal (the threat) was shot. Of course if the criminal was not shot they probably would not show up in “emergency departments” – this is why relying on “emergency departments” figures to define self-defense against criminals is a false assertion because its not always necessary to shoot a criminal for it to be valid self-defense by defensive gun use (which I described above).

          Every study you bring up has all or some elements of the bias and lies like told in this study, which is why they have been and continue to be debunked.

          Stop being so ignorant dacian.

        • dacian, the Dunderhead, Pure Unadulterated Horse Pucky. that was the longest winded diatribe of garbage I have ever seen.

        • @dacian

          There is so much wrong with your study … to continue… how you can not see the, sometimes sly, obvious fallacies in your study is beyond all reason.

          this > “We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.”

          At the very beginning the study tells you how biased they are with this > “epidemiological theory”

          “epidemiological theory” relates to the branch of medicine which deals with the incidence, distribution, and control of diseases.

          From the very beginning they look at self-defense by defensive gun use as a ‘disease’.

          Then this > “false positive” problem for rare events” > at the very beginning they approach self-defense by defensive gun use as a ‘rare event’ and they never leave that premise through the whole study and tailor their whole study to support that its a ‘rare event’.

          Then they broadly define this ‘rare event’ as > “1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense”

          Then they do this > “We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.”

          But their “validation” methods are biased from the beginning. Then they make the astounding (and false) claim of > “We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.”

          And to go back to this again, one of the most obvious pieces of falser hood is found in your link that you failed to copy and paste, this >

          “11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions

          Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.”

          This part in particular got a big laugh from my wife > “Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases).”

          1. There “300 cases” were cherry picked from women who were victims of sexual assault and WERE NOT armed with a firearm. So yeah, of those 300 they “never” used a gun to protect themselves against sexual assault BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HAVE A GUN WHEN THE SEXUAL ASSAULT HAPPENED.

          2. Then this > “Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes” Huh?

          Notice how they separate these two things, “contact crime’ and ‘sexual assault’

          A ‘contact crime’ is one in which the perpetrator is known to the victim, or the victim and perpetrator repeatedly encounter each other through everyday activities, such as working in the same environment or riding the same subway train.

          8 out of 10 rapes and committed by someone known to the victim. A rape is a ‘contact crime’.

          But “Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes” and rape is a ‘contact crime’ but for some reason in their study rape is not a ‘contact crime’ but instead a different thing they are trying to set apart.

          So this 1%, where did that come from? Here is what they are not telling you – of all the unarmed victims they cherry picked only 1% of them had encountered “contact crime’ so yeah, this gets translated into “Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes” and we have a new invented study category to expand their false premise and lied about their “women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault” because there are thousands of documented cases nationwide annually in police reports where a woman does use a gun to protect themselves against sexual assault.

    • back in the day…[when doctors made house calls]…they always left you a little extra pain-killer when they knew your condition was terminal….how is owning a gun any different?

    • DGUs are not all reported. And in some cases a DGU evolves into an ass whooping of a punk that sets them straight and no other actions are necessary. Said punk doesn’t want to tell police about getting whooped because they then have to explain the criminal acts they were committing that led to the ass whooping. And the ass whooper is content to not go through “all the paperwork” of filing charges and going to court.

      Also, the potential perp knowing the potential victim they are confronting is armed may keep the confrontation from getting out of hand. So what may end up in a short fight or police breaking up a conflagration as disorderly conduct that was originally intended to be an assault and battery, but the presence of a gun prevented it.

      Academics don’t know how the real world goes down in urban or rural areas.

      The anti-gun feds fund biased anti-gun studies. There is no doubt there.

      In the end, the right to bear arms is the Supreme law of the land. If you don’t like it, move to a more civil place like China or North Korea. Nobody gets hurt over there.

      • “In the end, the right to bear arms is the Supreme law of the land. ”

        Unfortunate reality is that “the right to bear arms” is what the courts say it is; that is the supreme law.

  15. correction: “committed suicide by the drug overdose method in the year ending March 2022”

    That should have been …

    … committed suicide by the drug overdose method in the last 12 months with more expected by the year (12 month period) ending 31 March 2022.

    • Booger Brain even a 5th grader can comprehend the fact that when a gun is in the home its far more likely to be used on a family member on another familiy member or result in an accidental shooting. Your Parania claiming everyone in your neighborhood is has been assaulted on the street or his home broken into is another paranoiac lie as well.

      I come from a large family and in the last 122 years of my families history from grandparents to great, great grand children not one has been robbed at gunpoint on the street or have had their homes broken into even when they were away.

      On the other hand I could write a book on how many people I have known who have been accidentally shot or deliberately shot by people in the home.

      Your paranoiac rant is pure bullshit in regards to hordes of criminals peaking around the corner at you 24 hours around the clock the result of either a sick individual or a bully who is always threatening people and looking for a fight which is probably the later case. Obviously you were probably a deranged cop who spent your entire life bullying or intimidating or shooting people with a sly grin on your face.

      • dacian, the Dunderhead. How do you account for the fact that millions of gun owners have never used their guns illegally on anyone let alone a family members. You are so full of s*it you are like a Christmas turkey.

        I am so glad none of your family has been robbed at gunpoint.

        (I know this is dacian the fake, but it is really the way the Dunderhead thinks)

      • @dacian

        Just putting aside for a moment that what you wrote is all lie, I’d like to address specific portions of your lie….

        1. I never said anything about “hordes of criminals peaking around the corner at” at me “24 hours around the clock…” – this is yet another fabrication you came up with.

        2. Then this from you > “On the other hand I could write a book on how many people I have known who have been accidentally shot or deliberately shot by people in the home.” – along with the other fictions you have presented here in this articles comment section, your book would be a work of fiction just as your claim here.

        3. Then this > “…the fact that when a gun is in the home its far more likely to be used on a family member on another familiy member or result in an accidental shooting.” > 100% false, more than 100% false. Ya ever notice how in your biased false studies and those claims of the anti-gun and the ‘medical profession’ they never address the fact that its 1% or less of guns “in the home” (based upon the number of gun owners) used to commit any crime or injury or suicide? ya never noticed that did you.

        In terms of risk likely hood; This is far less than anything else used to commit any crime or injury or suicide. Collectively (considering other methods, for example, of committing crime or injury or suicide, including with hands and feet). And if we expand that to account for causality such as, for example, poisoning (millions each year) or suicide by drug over dose (over 100,000 annually use drug over dose for suicide) or unintentional prescription medication opioid overdose (risk of death from an accidental opioid overdose is greater than the odds of dying in a car crash) – after expanding it to include those (which are not all inclusive, there are many more) – based upon the number of guns held by law abiding gun owners (estimated at a variable 393 – 400 million guns by government sources), it is only .003% likely that a gun in the home will be used “on a family member on another family member or result in an accidental shooting” of for a crime or a suicide.

        It is a lie that “when a gun is in the home its far more likely to be used on a family member on another family member or result in an accidental shooting.”

        Also, now you know why your biased false studies and those claims of the anti-gun and the ‘medical profession’ never address the fact that its 1% or less of guns “in the home” (based upon the number of gun owners) used to commit any crime or injury or suicide, and why they never include causality.

Comments are closed.