|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Americans Rarely Use Guns for Self-Defense Despite Widespread Belief
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The common narrative that armed Americans routinely use their firearms to protect themselves and their loved ones from threats has been dealt a significant blow by new research suggesting such scenarios are exceedingly rare.
A comprehensive study published March 14 in JAMA Network Open revealed that less than 1% of gun owners reported using their weapon defensively in the past year, while exposure to gun violence was dramatically more common. |
| Comment by:
Judge100
(3/15/2025)
|
The survey mentioned in this article only surveyed 3000 gun owners. In contrast, the 2021 National Firearms survey polled "fifty-four thousand U.S. residents aged 18 and over, and it identified 16,708 gun owners."
Results: "approximately a third
of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property,
often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by
firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year."
Nice try.
|
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
