case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2014-05-31 04:03 pm

[ SECRET POST #2706 ]


⌈ Secret Post #2706 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 079 secrets from Secret Submission Post #387.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
feotakahari: (Default)

Re: Suprisingly decent article on self defence

[personal profile] feotakahari 2014-06-01 01:59 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah, that one explicitly leaves out cases where the gun doesn't injure or kill anyone. In Kleck's study, 92% of cases where a gun was used for self defense involved either warning shots with no injury, or never firing a shot. (Again, I have no clue how good a study it was, and it has come under fire, but it at least makes sense that aiming a gun at someone wouldn't necessarily mean firing it.)
ariakas: (Default)

Re: Suprisingly decent article on self defence

[personal profile] ariakas 2014-06-01 02:14 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah, reading that, he's still using self-reported survey data, albeit with slightly more rigorous protocols than some. As your other article points out, gun owners self report having shot someone in self-defense at twice the rate of gunshot wounds treated in hospitals annually. In other words, they're lying at tremendous rates about incidents that are demonstrably false; at what rate then do figure the gun owners surveyed are lying about/exaggerating instances that would leave no evidence? These claims "justify" the need to own a firearm in this case, both politically and personally, in spite of the grave and very real risks of ownership.