Submit a question to our community and get an answer from real people.
Submit
liberalmediasucks

Why doesn't the majority of the news media not discuss the 2 million people who's lives were saved because of their guns?

All they talk about are the mass shootings and banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines. They ignore all the murders that happen daily across the nation. They don't want to cover stories when a person saved their life and/or their family's lives by having a gun and most of the time using it.

Report as

The specific claim based on the study is this ("DGU" means "defensive gun use"):
Quote:
222 of the 4799 respondents reported having at least one DGU in their household in the past 5 years. After correcting for oversampling in some regions, this figure drops to 66 personal accounts of DGUs in the preceding year, indicating that 1.326 percent of adults nationwide had experienced at least one DGU. When multiplied by 1.478, the average number of DGUs reported per DGU claimant for the preceding year, and by the total adult population, an estimate of 2.55 million DGUs per year was arrived at.

Okay, let's just mull that over for a minute. 1.3% of all American adults prevented at least one crime - last year - by brandishing, shooting, or referring to a gun. Not only that, but it happens year in and year out. And it's not the same 1.3% every year - while there's some overlap, the study results actually suggest that for the most part it's a new group doin' it each and every year (222/4799 yields 4.6% over five years, or a new .9% of the population engaging in DGU's each year).So, my having been an adult for about forty years, I should personally know a lot of people this has happened to. 40 X .9 = 36%! Of course the population has turned over during that time period with old people dying and new people achieving adulthood, so if it was done just once per lifetime by each defender it'd be closer to 18%. If we pump up the "repeat defender" rate by assuming that there are repeaters from one 5 year time span to another so we don't have to assume that 18% of all Americans engaged in DGU over that period of time we're still left with a substantial fraction of the population. I mean, during that time there's probably a hundred people I've known really well - well enough so that if they had prevented an actual crime (and used a gun to do so) I'm confident that I'd know about it. But I don't. I actually don't know a single one. I do know that people do prevent crimes, both with and without guns. But actual "crime prevented by gun-totin' civilian"? Absolutely zero first hand experience, zero reliable second hand experience.

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (6)
Report as
liberalmediasucks
It's not reliable to you because it discredits your hero Dear Ruler's policy. Need I mention more people died from hammers last year than "assault rifles"?! How about bare hands and feet killed more people last year than all shotguns and rifles combined. I will paste a link with stories on how armed citizens saved lives. The reason the biased and bogus media won't discuss these stories is because they discredit their anti-gun agenda as well as their Superstar President's. Look at Chicago and DC, strictest gun laws and a very high violent crime rate. States/cities that are second amendment friendly and conceal and carry friendly saw crime rates drop. As far as your numbers go the amount of deaths from mass shootings pales in comparison to traffic deaths. I already know you are an Obama loving/obsessed liberal who loves everything about our president. Next banning high capacity magazines and "assault rifles" won't do any good. People will still murder people and criminals will find ways to have guns. How about the government focus on criminals and the severely mentally ill and leave us 99% responsible gun owners alone. But as usual you won't be able to absorb this as you are difficult to rationalize with.
Report as
liberalmediasucks
Read above and learn some truth.
Report as
boo ... I understand what you're saying, but your reasoning is wrong. You're basing the theory the numbers are wrong, on the fact that you don't personally know anyone. That would be like me saying, since I don't personally know any women who are raped ... any statistics on the likelyhood of a woman being raped are false.

Now, if you want to attack the figure as unreliable ... a better reason would be the size of the sample, or who the sample consisted of, or the unreliability of just multiplying a sample to arrive at a number for the entire nation.
Report as
Boo must not have any friends or relatives in the military either.
Report as
Here is another set of gun-related data:

Center for Injury Control (CIC), Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA study entitled "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182)
----------
Summary of results: For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Conclusions: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
_________________________________
Here is more data provided by the National Center for Health Statistics for the year 2010 (http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewpage&page_id=050fea9f-b064-4092-b1135c3a70de1fda - See section entitled "Firearms and Suicide")
----------
* Although most gun owners reportedly keep a firearm in their home for "protection" or "self defense," 83 percent of gun-related deaths in these homes are the result of a suicide, often by someone other than the gun owner.
* Firearms are used in more suicides than homicides.
* Death by firearms is the fastest growing method of suicide.
* Firearms account for 50 percent of all suicides.
----------
Given the results of these and many other studies, not only is a gun in the home less likely to be used for self-defense, but according to the CIC study cited above, the odds are 22:1 that it will do harm in a non-defensive manner. When one chooses to have a gun in the home, those are the statistics they need to be aware of. But human nature being what it is, if someone wants to own a gun, they will not think those statistics apply to them.

BTW, every parent who keeps a gun in the home should be aware that suicide by gun is now the third leading cause of teenage death.
Report as
Walt, I'm basing it on the numbers. If the numbers were that high all of us would know at least one person that had done so.
By the way, the ONLY place you find this mythical 2 million is on right wing blogs which we know some people consider fact because "they saw it on the Internet"
Report as
Add a comment...

Never mind. Misread the entry

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

because their to busy worrying about the negative and not focusing on the positive

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Because it's only "news" if it's not common.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

They ignored the FACT that 30 children were stabbed 23 to death the same day as New Town shootings.
there's a New World Order agenda. As Hitler did to control his people. Disarm them first.
I hate to tell you this But J McCain and his 2 amigos have made ammunition illegal under 1867 patriot act. It is designed for terrorists but the verbage is open ended to include everyone if/when the Govt decides to do so.
We'll let you own your gun.You can't have any ammo. surprise!
The madia is a propaganda tool. that's why there is no longer an investigative journalist on any network. If we got both sides of the story we might find out that Alqeada is a bunch of ripped off farmers who had their land stolen by EXXON mobil/BP. how would you fight an army like the U.S Britain? Not head on.

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (9)
Report as
liberalmediasucks
Report as
liberalmediasucks
I cannot make more than a few comments without at least one being removed. Wtf?!
Report as
Sorry but Hitler did not disarm the German people. I dont know where this is coming from but he took away guns from conquered nations, not of his own.
Report as
liberalmediasucks
I am not saying Hitler disarmed. The point of my link was to share stories of how people saved lives because they had guns. Did I paste the wrong link?
Report as
No, Im talking to RobertTyrrell. Not you, sorry.
Report as
God, where to start with the errors...
The children in china all survived, unlike the children in new town.
Hitler relaxed gun laws
New world order, oh geeze, that's not even worth replying to.
McCain is old but I'm pretty sure he wasn't around in 1867...
Ammunition is not illegal
And you really have to walk away from the survivalist blogs. They are a tad nuts.
Report as
haha boo153 great answer! :D I didnt even notice half that stuff! But this thing with the Chinese children, I thought some had died from it. Not sure, and yeah not much of a "New World Order" just the U.S.A. wanting to frighten people. I dont know why, but thats what they try to do.
Report as
A Guangshan county hospital administrator said the man first attacked an elderly woman, then students, before being subdued by security guards who have been posted across China following a spate of school attacks in recent years. He said there were no deaths among the nine students admitted, although two badly injured children had been transferred to better-equipped hospitals outside the county.
A doctor at Guangshan's hospital of traditional Chinese medicine said that seven students had been admitted, but that none were seriously injured.
Report as
They want to pass the "Barney Fife" law, one gun,one bullet.



Report as
Add a comment...

True to that!!!

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

The news is now a major part of politics. Politicians control most media outlets and make them say what they want them to say. I like the feeling of having a gun to protect myself. If the bad guys have it then I want something to keep my family and others safe. But the media wants everyone to think they are bad and anyone who owns them has a mass murder agenda.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (3)
Report as
liberalmediasucks
Stat
Report as
liberalmediasucks
Star I mean
Report as
Thanks :)
Report as
Add a comment...

2 million that's quite a large and specific number. Did you make up that figure or did you read this somewhere? Are you sure it wasn't 2 bazillion people who were saved by guns?

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (3)
Report as
The fact is that in places where guns can openly be carried you will ultimately find less crime thus saving many life's from those criminals that would do you harm. So billions wouldn't be that far off.
Report as
Stars blacksmith. When pulling numbers out of thin air, I guess millions sounded more believable.
Report as
While I will agree that if we outlaw guns then only criminals would be armed, I dont like psedustatisiticans who toss around opinions and made up figures as if they were reciting established data. But then again gussing billions can't be off by more than mere billions.
Report as
Add a comment...

They deliver the news based on their own agenda.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...
Do you have an answer?
Answer this question...
Did you mean?
Login or Join the Community to answer