Dizzipator
New member
Battler,
When I first made the comment, I was simply referring to the fact that the DOJ arms all of their investigators and agents with guns for their protection, so obviously the DOJ thinks that guns are good defensive tools.
But your question jogged a memory free out of my cluttered noggin, something about a government study years ago indicating that if you defended yourself with a firearm that you would be less likely to be injured than if you did not offer up a defense AND that you would also be less likely to be injured than if you defended yourself with a weapon other than a firearm.
I poked around the DOJ site (BTW- Big surprise - The site was not very organized nor was it particularly useful for someone trying to prove a pro-self-defense position.) until I found the following abstract.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cv98.htm
OR: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
Here is the pertinent part of the text abstract:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Self-defense with firearms
*38% of the victims defending themselves with a firearm attacked
the offender, and the others threatened the offender with the
weapon.
*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.
Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects
of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime
circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims'
injury outcomes.
About three-fourths of the victims who used firearms for
self-defense did so during a crime of violence, 1987-92
Average annual number of victimizations
in which victims used firearms to defend
themselves or their property
________________________________________
Attacked Threatened
Total offender offender
________________________________________
All crimes 82,500 30,600 51,900
Total violent crime 62,200 25,500 36,700
With injury 12,100 7,300 4,900
Without injury 50,000 18,200 31,800
Theft, burglary,
motor vehicle theft 20,300 5,100 15,200
Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Includes
victimizations in which offenders were unarmed. Excludes
homicides.
*In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or
their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed
or armed with weapons other than firearms. On average between 1987
and 1992, about 35% (or 22,000 per year) of the violent crime
victims defending themselves with a firearm faced an offender who
also had a firearm. (Because the NCVS collects victimization data
on police officers, its estimates of the use of firearms for
self-defense are likely to include police use of firearms.
Questionnaire revisions introduced in January 1993 will permit
separate consideration of police and civilian firearm cases.)
[/quote]
Not particularly clear, and the questions asked do not go directly to the point, but note that victims were injured in 50% or all violent crime, but only injured 20% of the time when they resisted by using a firearm. This means that victims that did not use a firearm to resist and victims that did not resist were on average around One Hundred and Fifty Percent more likely to be injured!
Hope this helps.
When I first made the comment, I was simply referring to the fact that the DOJ arms all of their investigators and agents with guns for their protection, so obviously the DOJ thinks that guns are good defensive tools.
But your question jogged a memory free out of my cluttered noggin, something about a government study years ago indicating that if you defended yourself with a firearm that you would be less likely to be injured than if you did not offer up a defense AND that you would also be less likely to be injured than if you defended yourself with a weapon other than a firearm.
I poked around the DOJ site (BTW- Big surprise - The site was not very organized nor was it particularly useful for someone trying to prove a pro-self-defense position.) until I found the following abstract.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cv98.htm
OR: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
Here is the pertinent part of the text abstract:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Self-defense with firearms
*38% of the victims defending themselves with a firearm attacked
the offender, and the others threatened the offender with the
weapon.
*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.
Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects
of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime
circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims'
injury outcomes.
About three-fourths of the victims who used firearms for
self-defense did so during a crime of violence, 1987-92
Average annual number of victimizations
in which victims used firearms to defend
themselves or their property
________________________________________
Attacked Threatened
Total offender offender
________________________________________
All crimes 82,500 30,600 51,900
Total violent crime 62,200 25,500 36,700
With injury 12,100 7,300 4,900
Without injury 50,000 18,200 31,800
Theft, burglary,
motor vehicle theft 20,300 5,100 15,200
Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Includes
victimizations in which offenders were unarmed. Excludes
homicides.
*In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or
their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed
or armed with weapons other than firearms. On average between 1987
and 1992, about 35% (or 22,000 per year) of the violent crime
victims defending themselves with a firearm faced an offender who
also had a firearm. (Because the NCVS collects victimization data
on police officers, its estimates of the use of firearms for
self-defense are likely to include police use of firearms.
Questionnaire revisions introduced in January 1993 will permit
separate consideration of police and civilian firearm cases.)
[/quote]
Not particularly clear, and the questions asked do not go directly to the point, but note that victims were injured in 50% or all violent crime, but only injured 20% of the time when they resisted by using a firearm. This means that victims that did not use a firearm to resist and victims that did not resist were on average around One Hundred and Fifty Percent more likely to be injured!
Hope this helps.
