Debunking “you're more likely for a gun used against you”

[Boats]

The few times I have heard this one I simply told the speaker to quit projecting his/her own personal weakness upon the rest of society.

Just because they'd let someone take a gun away from them says nothing about my odds in a like situation. My odds run much more strongly towards stopped perp.

 

[SaMx]

ask them to cite a study that shows this. tell them that the argument seems like BS and if they can't back it up it doesn't mean anything.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I have noticed among anti-gunners that their speculations
always seem to trump statistics or actual tests.

You can sneak a Glock "plastic hijacker special" past
a metal detector or Xray.
If you remove the barrel, the slide, hammer,
firingpin, all the springs--in short you can slip the
plastic handle with none of the metal parts essential
to fire a cartridge past a metal detector. And the
plastic handle will still show up on Xray.

The Teflon on the KTW "cop killer" bullet enables the
bullet to penetrate a bullet proof vest.
The teflon on the KTW bullet actually causes more friction
in penetrating Kevlar body armor and REDUCES penetration
in Kevlar vs the same bullet without Teflon.
The teflon on the KTW bullet causes it to "stick" on curved
windshield glass or auto sheet metal parts, making the
bullet more likely to penetrate than to ricochet.
And KTW, who only sold to police and whose bullets were
never used to kill a cop, went bankrupt and no longer
produces ammo.

Most anti-gun talking points are on the level of urban legend.

 

[Dr. Dickie]

My understanding (I thought I read this somewhere) is that this is based on the fact that police officers had their weapons taken away from them.
Course, it is understandable that a LEO may get their gun taken. They are more likely to have their gun out, visible on their side. They are interacting a WHOLE lot more with bad guys. They are more likely to find themselves wrestling with a bad guy. Etc, etc.
Also, I suspect that a LOT more training has taken place over the last 10 or 20 years that deals with weapon retention, so this does not happen as much as it used to.
Again, it is my understanding that this was never based on actual statistics.

 

[dasmi]

A friend tried this one on me. I put my hand in the shape of a gun, and told the person to take it before I raised it up and said bang.

 

[Telperion]

Ask why they think an attacker can disarm you before you can shoot, but could not take your phone away from you before you dial 911.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

When people make assertions, it is their responsibility to prove it correct. You do not have the responsibility to disprove their statement.

I think this assertion was originally directed to women who were being told that they were wimps and would not use the gun and so the perpetrator would grab it. The woman is always the loser per this line of thought.

 

[orygunmike]

Having Your Own Gun Used Against You

From this site: http://www.2asisters.org/education/ninemyths.htm
======================================================
* Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count. Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3] Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold. Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.

Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse . From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes. Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19]
Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.

 

[LeafsFan]

Boats said: Just because they'd let someone take a gun away from them says nothing about my odds in a like situation. My odds run much more strongly towards stopped perp.

Correct.

Buying a gun is only a part of the self-defense process. You must both learn how to use it and develop the mindset for using it. This means being willing to shoot a criminal who is advancing on you instead of freezing up and letting him get close enough to "take your gun away from you". (or shoot you/stab you/bludgeon you with the weapon he himself brought with him when he broke into your home.)

People don't rise to the occasion in times of crisis, they default to their highest level of preparedness. If you're not prepared, your default setting is that of a sheep.

 

[ozwyn]

some old numbers from the .gov may give you some information to use on this issue

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

Lot of stuff to sort through to see meaningful numbers.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm is the root website.


I seem to recall at one time looking at the FBI numebrs and determining the more realisitics odds were more like 80% that the gun owner would have the gun and NOT have it used against them. But I can't find my source for a dang anymore.

 

[Zundfolge]

If its so easy to take a gun away from someone and use it on them, then criminals wouldn't carry/use guns to commit their crimes because it would be too dangerous.



Too many antis ascribe supernatural powers to criminals.

 

[JP1954]

I remember many years ago a martial artist friend of mine said he wanted to try something out. He handed me his .357 revolver and told me to hold it up to his back and pull the trigger the moment I noticed him starting to move. After I did the obligatory point in a safe direction and verify for myself the cylinder was empty, we proceeded with the test. On double action mode I could not drop the hammer on him before he was able to grab the gun and deflect it. On single action mode I dropped it on him before he could get half way turned around.

The point I learned from this is that if you are going to use a firearm to defend yourself, you are at risk of losing the weapon if you are too close to your adversary. Maintaining distance is key IMO.

That being said, I've lived with liberals all my life and I have learned that more often than not, what they say is not what they mean. To get to the truth you have to read between the lines. When they say don't count on your gun for defense because it can be taken away from you what they really mean is that they don't consider you worthy of having firearms and
they want to have more control over you. In the end their ultimate aim is not gun control. That is just one means to the end which is complete and total domination over society.

Politically correct = Intellectually void
Is = whatever you want it to mean if you are a liberal caught in a bold faced lie.
Liberal = A person suffering from the mental illness of Liberalism which causes the victim to believe things are facts based solely on emotions and without any reasoning being applied.

 

[Notch]

I have had the " your gun will jus be used against you" crap thrown at me. It is simple...
In the anti gun environment we live in ( and most all will admit that is true) the media would PLASTER stories of folks having their OWN gun used on them...WHEN is the last time you heard about it happening?

EVER heard of it?

NOW how many accounts do we see a month (on average ) concerning would be felons getting dropped in their tracks by a good guy with a gun?

Reality speaks for itself!

 

[BADUNAME13]

Evil smile... Ya gatt get it first. (Or: Your welcome to try.)

Alternately, If I choose to while they are looking at it... and try to say something like that I already have my offhand on my BUG... Wether I choose to show them...

 

[WinchesterAA]

I think the effect would be more heartwarming if you gave the anti an airsoft gun or something and let him/her shoot at you while you try to take it away from him/her.

Doesn't really take much effort, just some semi-quick reflexes.

It's a lot like snatching something from someone then waving it in their face to taunt them while they try to grab it back but never can.

 

[Deanimator]

EVER heard of it?

I've been asking for over TWENTY years in usenet, and FidoNet before that.

So far, nobody's been able to give me an example.

 

[tuckerdog1]

Couldn't care less about that stat, true or not. If I'm in a situation where I need a gun, I want to have one, and I'll take my chances on having it taken away ( fat chance that's gonna happen ).

Tuckerdog1

 

[RCouch]

The only situation that I can think of is a person that is so afraid of the gun that they can't use it, in which case they probably shouldn't have it to begin with. If I'm a BG and see a gun pointed at me, even if that person is shaking, I don't think I'd take a chance unless I'm drunk or high on drugs.

 

[Deanimator]

Couldn't care less about that stat, true or not. If I'm in a situation where I need a gun, I want to have one, and I'll take my chances on having it taken away ( fat chance that's gonna happen ).

The more lies we can refute, the easier it will be for you to LEGALLY have that gun. The alternative is Chicago, where the masses are ignorant, apathetic, and believe whatever lies they're told and you're as likely to be prosecuted for defending yourself as any degenerate is for causing you to NEED to defend yourself.

 

[iocane]

So some person is claiming that guns are dangerous to us and can be used against us. After they take away are guns are they planning to shoot us with the gun? Sounds like another reason for there not to be gun laws. They want to take away our guns, and they say the guns taken from us can be used to kill us. Mmmmm, so thats why they want to take away the guns.

 

[Dr. Dickie]

Actually, we could use this.
Just repond to them with:
"That is why we should be allowed to have machine guns. As you have never heard of someone taking away a machine gun from someone and using it against them."
What can they say? They cannot say they have heard of it happening, and if they say:
"That's becuase no one owns a machine gun."
Or even if they say it correctly that few people own one. Just repond:
"So, what has that got to do with your argument? The fact is, no one has had their machine gun taken away and used against them."

 

[Cpl Nobbs]

"prove it"

so far no one has been able to.

 

[akodo]

first off, there are instances where honest law abiding citizens are able to take guns away from armed robbers, and use said guns against robbers....but it is extremely rare.

It IS possible, just not very probable. Police, who are tasked a bit different than an armed citizen (cops can't run away and let someone else deal with it, we can, and cops are the ones who eventually may need to wrestle an unarmed person to the ground etc etc) are much more vunerable to being disarmed and having the gun used against them because of the need to subdue people, yet even for them it is extremely rare.


But lets just for a minute say it is easy. Lets say it works 9 times out of 10. But that 1 time where it doesn't work, what happens? They get shot multiple times in the torso. What criminal would take even a 10% of getting shot over $20. They are going to go for an easier target, the risk vs reward is too high.

Also, if it is really easy, what prevents the legally armed person from just taking it right back?

 

[Pax Jordana]

I hate to BTTT this, but I'm gonna anyway because i'm a bad person (where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?)

Saw this on google news when I got on:

http://www.nbc10.com/news/13207512/detail.html?rss=phi&psp=news

during the robbery and a struggle went on and the gun discharged," said Sam Brackeen, a friend of the neighbor.

The alleged would-be robber was shot in the head and chest.

(emphasis mine)

Just remember! It goes BOTH WAYS!