Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Nice, if not dated, statistics. A deterrent, maybe, but a sloppy one considering how many women are shot by their partners and how many people die from self-inflicted gun-shot wounds.
But, really, what do home-invasions and muggings have to do with a guy losing his nut and shooting up a mall? Do you really think this guy would have changed his mind if he thought people were armed?
|
I was responding to the idea that a gun is a liability rather than an asset. Random shooting sprees like this can only be prevented by remaining vigilant and helping the mentally ill get the treatment that they need before they can become a threat to themselves and others.
Self-inflicted gunshot deaths are unfortunate, but a suicidal person who is intent on killing himself will find a way to do so. The statistic that family members are more likely to be killed by a gun than criminals was based on a study of a nonrandom sample of 43 incidents in two cities. The statistic of women being murdered in the home was a case study of only 266 incidents, did not use a random sample, and did not distinguish between legal and illegal guns. It also concluded that 54% of homicides of women in the home are committed without firearms, and that drug use and prior domestic abuse (which, if reported and addressed properly, will disqualify an abusive spouse from legally owning guns.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Statistically speaking, how likely is one to be shot by a felon if they aren't armed and pose no threat?
|
According to the British Home Office (this was before the 1997 handgun ban, I don't have a definite date on the numbers but 1993 is coming to mind for some reason,) the chance of being injured by an armed robber was as follows:
Victim resisted with a gun; 6%
Victim did nothing at all: 25%
Victim resisted with a knife: 40%
Victim used non-violent resistance: 45%