Gunfight or Flee: New Study Finds No Advantages to Using a Firearm in Self-Defense Situations

[SecularMotion]

A recent study published in The Journal of Preventive Medicine offers new support for the argument that owning a gun does not make you safer. The study, led by David Hemenway, Ph.D., of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, examines data from the National Crime Victimization Survey — an annual survey of 90,000 households — and shows not only that so-called “defensive gun use” (DGU) rarely protects a person from harm, but also that such incidents are much more rare than gun advocates claim.

A 2014 Gallup poll suggests that Americans increasingly perceive owning firearms as an effective means of self-defense — having a gun makes one less likely to become a victim of a crime. But as Hemenway’s study demonstrates, this belief is not supported by crime statistics. Contrary to what many gun advocates argue, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data reveals that having a gun provides no statistically significant benefit to a would-be victim during a criminal confrontation.

The study found that in incidents where a victim used a gun in self-defense, the likelihood of suffering an injury was 10.9 percent. Had the victim taken no action at all, the risk of injury was virtually identical: 11 percent. Having a gun also didn’t reduce the likelihood of losing property: 38.5 percent of those who used a gun in self-defense had property taken from them, compared to 34.9 percent of victims who used another type of weapon, such as a knife or baseball bat.

What’s more, the study found that while the likelihood of injury after brandishing a firearm was reduced to 4.1 percent, the injury rate after those defensive gun uses was similar to using any other weapon (5.3 percent), and was still greater than if the person had run away or hid (2.4 percent) or called the police (2.2 percent). These results were similar to previous research on older NCVS data which showed that, while using a firearm in self-defense did lower a person’s risk of subsequent injury, it was less effective than using any weapon other than a gun.

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/defensive-gun-use-armed-with-reason-hemenway/

[Shamash]

1. So, is this more or less authoritative than the CDC?

That is, which is more likely to be accurate:

a) An aggregate of studies on the subject vetted by the CDC and a panel of experts on the subject of firearm violence?
b) A single study by an economist with an anti-gun bias, as reported in a link to an anti-gun website?

Just checking because the CDC said the exact opposite of what you cut & pasted. I wanted to see what you consider ‘good’ standards for reporting on the subject and whether or not a pro-gun paper that one of us linked to at the NRA web site would be equally credible in your eyes.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. So, there's no advantage to being defenseless.

That invalidates the previous Controller meme that having a gun makes it worse by some obviously absurd number like 44:1.

However, the study says --

What’s more, the study found that while the likelihood of injury after brandishing a firearm was reduced to 4.1 percent, the injury rate after those defensive gun uses was similar to using any other weapon (5.3 percent), and was still greater than if the person had run away or hid (2.4 percent) or called the police (2.2 percent).

That assumes you can run away or call the police.

If you can't? Use a gun.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. One thing that will for certain not help is...

...paying to read another biased study from Hemenway. Dave Hemenway is the Colonel Klink of self-defense. If your not sure what's best, just check with Dave and do the opposite.

[Eleanors38]

11. Damn, beat me to it again. "Absorbs 44 times its weight in stomach acid!"

[Duckhunter935]

3. I think I trust the CDC

peer reviewed study.

What are your thoughts? Would you like to discuss them as per the group SOP.

[gejohnston]

4. A study by Hemenway

whose chair at Harvard is funded by the same people who astro turf the Brady Campaign, that shows up in a medical magazine instead of a criminology magazine, and is reprinted in a website created by Bloomberg to be the prohibitionists gunssaveslives.com

The CDC did a survey of studies of real criminologists published in peer review criminology publications, found the exact opposite after years of believing the movies.

[Lizzie Poppet]

5. There is no "one size fits all" response.

Example: I am in very good shape from an endurance standpoint (serious cyclist...). But I'm also quite small and not particularly powerful. I could probably outdistance most potential attackers over time. However, that does me no good if they can out-sprint me over the first 50 yards. One critical element of my fight-or-flight decision would have to be whether or not I thought I could out-sprint my attacker, then keep going if he didn't break off the attack. If I think I can do so, great. Running away is vastly preferable to shooting him and dealing with the legal system shitstorm and the emotional impact that accompanies even the most justifiable killing of another human being. If I think he* can haul me down in the first few yards, I'm going to fight back instead (and in such cases I prefer to fight with a firearm, by far the most effective way of doing so).

I'll take a look at this research, though. A close look, as I'm distrustful of Hemenway's methodologies, having seen a fair bit of cherry-picking in some of his previous research (and yes, I'm very well qualified indeed to do this...I can get into that, if anyone's interested). But this is a rather different conclusion from that presented by the CDC, so it bears further examination.

* I use "he" because probability strongly favors an attacker being a young-ish male...but a larger, stronger attacker than me could certainly be a female (I'm small even for a woman).

[sarisataka]

7. SPAMento™ Cheese Baby Reds

SPAMento™ Cheese Baby Reds

The meat and potatoes to this recipe isn’t just meat and potatoes. It’s smooth pimento cheese, flavorful bell peppers and tasty seasonings. It takes an ordinary classic into an extraordinary meal. Your Great-Great-Grandma would be proud of this great-great meal.

Ingredients

1 12-ounce can SPAM® Classic, diced
1 tablespoon butter
1/2 medium red bell pepper, diced
12 ounces whipped pimento spread
24 baby red potatoes, cut in half
1 1/2 teaspoons salt
1 teaspoon black pepper
2 tablespoons olive oil
2 tablespoons chopped chives, for garnish
1/2 teaspoon cayenne pepper
Directions Launch Kitchen View

1Preheat oven to 400°F. In large skillet, in butter, heat the SPAM® Classic until lightly browned. Drain well.
2Whip the pimento cheese spread in a blender until smooth. Place pimento cheese spread in a large bowl. Add the SPAM® Classic (reserve about 1/3 for garnish) and diced red bell pepper.
3Thoroughly wash and clean the potatoes. Cut in half and scoop out the center of each with a spoon or Parisian scoop. Mix the olive oil, salt and pepper in a bowl. Coat the potato halves with the mixture and place on a baking sheet, cut side down. Bake at 400°F for about 25 minutes or until soft when pierced with a knife.
4Remove from oven and fill center with the SPAMento™ cheese mixture. Garnish the filled potatoes with the reserves SPAM® Classic, chives and a dusting of cayenne pepper, if desired. Serve immediately. Makes 48.

I put more faith in the CDC (you know, that one that pro-control groups want to study gun violence) and the FBI who have a different opinion based on their data.

[Straw Man]

8. It's always Hemenway.

I wonder why that is.

[pablo_marmol]

9. Uh oh. Here comes a sneeze.......HU......HU.......HORSESH*T!!!

Here's that rat-bastard liberal criminologist that kicks Hemenway's backside:

[TeddyR]

10. Good piece

Thanks for posting.

[pablo_marmol]

12. You are very welcome Teddy. NT