Guns: protection or peril?
(ScienceDaily): In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun. “This study helps resolve the long-standing debate about whether guns are protective or perilous,” notes study author Charles C. Branas, PhD, Associate Professor of Epidemiology. “Will possessing a firearm always safeguard against harm or will it promote a false sense of security?”
Category: Science and Nature
The usual bs study. Did they test for law abiding citizens or were the gangbangers included?
Guns are bad, no matter what.
What will Richard Wadd say about this?
Yet everyone here seems to think they need to own one!
Well heck, I’m not a PhD of any kind but I also think you do not have to be one to figure this out. When one opposes fire with fire, the odds of getting shot, either one or both of them, has just risen by about 99%. There is the odd case such as the one at Next Level recently that a person just pulls a gun and starts shooting like a mad man and that’s probably what he is.
Common sense people, guns will attracked more guns and what most of us already know that most people get actually killed by their own gun, eventually.
You have absolutely no evidence to prove that, “most people get… killed by their own gun”. Common sense: it is better to have a firearm for protection and not need to use it, than needing one and not having it.