SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: combjelly who wrote (868588)6/29/2015 3:43:21 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 1579728
 
Taken at face value, that would have meant that close to 1% of the population was using guns defensively every year. Unless you assume that some small population was supremely unlucky, everybody should know at least one person who had done that.

Close to 1 percent per year doesn't imply everyone would know about it. There would be some concentration in terms of defense use, also not everyone would talk to all their friends and family about it, let alone more distant acquaintances.

Both factors would be greatly increased by the fact that during the time period for the study it was more difficult to legally carry around a gun in many places, so fewer people would do so, and the defensive use would be more concentrated, also fewer people would talk about it.

No carrying around a gun legally is much easier (witch would reduce the concentration), and crime is lower (which would reduce the need for defensive use).

There is some reason to think some of the cases considered defensive use were false positives, there would also be false negatives (as pointed out by the quotes in my last post). Hard to say how many of each but even if the estimate was too high by a factor of 10 that would be a lot of defensive use.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext