Jul 23rd 2015, 2:58:39
The headline on the article claims there are "no advantages to using a firearm in self-defense situations".
Later, we have this tidbit:
"What’s more, the study found that while the likelihood of injury after brandishing a firearm was reduced to 4.1 percent, the injury rate after those defensive gun uses was similar to using any other weapon (5.3 percent)"
Now, to someone just casually reading this article, not questioning anything the writers put forth, 1% doesn't seem like a significant difference.
But to go from 4.1 percent chance of injury when using a gun for self defense, up to 5.3 percent with other weapons... That is a TWENTY FIVE percent increase in injury rate. If you are unable to flee from your attacker and have a knife instead of a gun, you are ***twenty five percent more likely*** to be injured. "No advantages to using a firearm"? Really?
The writers of this article are letting their bias shine quite brightly.
Later, we have this tidbit:
"What’s more, the study found that while the likelihood of injury after brandishing a firearm was reduced to 4.1 percent, the injury rate after those defensive gun uses was similar to using any other weapon (5.3 percent)"
Now, to someone just casually reading this article, not questioning anything the writers put forth, 1% doesn't seem like a significant difference.
But to go from 4.1 percent chance of injury when using a gun for self defense, up to 5.3 percent with other weapons... That is a TWENTY FIVE percent increase in injury rate. If you are unable to flee from your attacker and have a knife instead of a gun, you are ***twenty five percent more likely*** to be injured. "No advantages to using a firearm"? Really?
The writers of this article are letting their bias shine quite brightly.