Talk:Defensive gun use/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protected Edit request: "According to this WP:Hoax Article, over 1,000 percent of attempted violent crimes are prevented by a good guy with a gun. Thanks to guns, we live in a crime-free utopia. "

Please add to lead to reflect logic of article: "According to this WP:Hoax Article, over 1,000 percent of violent crimes are prevented by a good guy with a gun. Thanks to guns, we live in a crime-free utopia. Every time a crime is attempted in the U.S., 10 are prevented by a private citizen with a firearm. "" — Preceding unsigned comment added by My Only Weapon is Truth (talk • contribs) 13:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. Logic Freebaser (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

4 million defensive gun uses annually?

Q.E.D. My Only Weapon is Truth (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm honestly interested: do we really have editors on here dumb enough to think that there are "4 million defensive gun uses" annually in the United States? Please don't be shy. I'd like to hear from those who believe this nonsense, or who believe a credible source says this.My Only Weapon is Truth (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd love to hear from the first editor able to explain: 1) How it is possible that there could be 4 million defensive gun uses in the united States, and 1.2 million attempted violent crimes (63 percent of which are simple assaults, for which the use of a gun would not be "defensive", but criminal), entailing that, somehow, far more than 100 percent of crimes are prevented by "good guys with guns"? 2) Why, pray tell, if this a non-hoax, that there are no researchers in any countries besides the U.S. who believe in "defensive gun uses" (a fake phenomenon)? 3) Why the knuckleheads in charge of this article have decided that speculative survey extrapolations are "reliable sources" but official government statistics are "original research"? Are you dumb? Answers will be greatly appreciated.My Only Weapon is Truth (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

At least the lunatics running this page backed off from the "33 million DGU's" they were pushing last time I was here. You just can't cure stupid, sadly. Please, everyone, intellectual work isn't for you. Find something else to do with your time. My Only Weapon is Truth (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

High Estimate Seems to be 4.7m, not 2.1m

Should not 4.7 million be used as the upper range, putting Kleck and Gertz somewhere in the middle of the range?Carwon (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. And the Kleck/Gertz numbers can be (should be) qualified or adjusted downward by 50% since the US crime rate is now about half the value in 1993 when the NSDS was conducted.spottydog3 (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Low estimate Hemingway'slogic the same as anti-vaccine advocates

Reading through Hemingway's work advocate the low end of the estimates, I am struck by how much it mirrors anti vaccine advocates who cite harm but who insist on the bottom number of estimated benefit. I don't wan to directly add my thought son that to the article, but Hemingway's logic being so similar to anti vaccine people does bear mentioning here for future editors.Carwon (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The new "low estimate" of 127 is the total number from the SURVEY GROUP ONLY, not the whole country. Good grief. Someone grossly misunderstood what they were reading in the survey results when they cited that number on the page. A clue should have been that the FBI has documented Justifiable Homicides (self defense) uses at over 200 per year in recent years , which is the small minority of cases where the gun was actually fired in self defense and killed the perpetrator. So how could a low estimate of all self defense uses, including when the gun wasn't fired, be only 127? Someone with better editing skills please check the survey and revert that erroneous edits. 74.96.242.195 (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The IP is correct. I'm not sure that study is even designed to look at the total number; it seems that Hemmenway was trying to talk about the results of a DGU, not about the total number of DGUs. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

See also

The "see also" guideline suggests that

"As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section."

All three of this article's see alsos appear in its first paragraph, making it unlikely that a reader needs a second mention. I've been reverted by another editor on this, however, so won't edit war over it [1]; if it's felt that this article needs to be an exception to usual editing practices, that's okay with me too. I realize it has a controversial history. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted my own change. I misread your comment and thought you were removing them based on the general applicability/relevance of those links (as has been done recently in a few other articles i monitor). On further review I understood your purpose and agree - the links are already in the body. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)