search
top

New Study: You’re Better off Running Away

Now that Bloomberg has put some real money back into anti-gun research, the studies appear to be flowing. Bloomberg’s mouthpieces, Evan DeFillippis and Devin Hughes (yes, those guys, who I now speculate were paid shills all along) point to a new study out that shows you’re really just better off running away. Notice how all their studies are published behind paywalls, while our researchers upload their studies to SSRN where anyone can read and dissect them?

Anecdotally, I only know two people who have ever had to use a gun in self-defense. In one case, the friend was in an attempted robbery. Attempted because he drew a gun on the robbers, and they retreated posthaste. The incident was reported to 911, but the dispatcher asked if the friend really wanted a car sent out to take a report, and he answered no. The second was in a rural home, before the days of 911, and was just never reported to police. Both of these were absolutely and unambiguously self-defense.

I’m not surprised they are picking these studies apart, because just about every study has shown a fairly significant amount of defensive gun use. I would expect more studies on how ineffective firearms are at protecting people. But here’s a question for Mr. DeFillippis and Mr. Hughes: if firearms are so ineffective at self-protection, when will Mr. Bloomberg, your patron, voluntarily disarm his security detail? Or are guns only effective when they are protecting rich billionaires?

 

8 Responses to “New Study: You’re Better off Running Away”

  1. MicroBalrog says:

    Hemenway STRIKES AGAIN.

    The guy is a veritable fount of anti-gun studies.

  2. The_Jack says:

    So they’ve telling the infirm and disabled to piss off?
    Quite the ableist argument then?

    One also sees their mentality in that if X is less effective than Y, then Y should be banned.

    Does this mean they’ll advocate for bans on pepperspray and tasers and knives? (Given the state of the UK… give them time).

    And of course there’s the funny catch 22 that guns in the hands of criminals are so devistating and effective that there has to be mass bans and registration…

    and yet guns are somehow ineffective at self defense.

    It’s like how crime is so rampant that the goverment must “DO Something” but a citizen who carries is a paranoid.

    Or the old chestnut of “Don’t carry a gun you’ll just get it taken away from you” but criminals are somehow exempt from that.

  3. Archer says:

    “In one case, the friend was in an attempted robbery. Attempted because he drew a gun on the robbers, and they retreated posthaste. […] The second was in a rural home, before the days of 911, and was just never reported to police.”

    And in both, the attempted robbers ran away, and therefore were better off.

    See? The “study” is correct! [/sarcasm]

    • Sebastian says:

      Ha! I need to get a like button plugin, like Facebook.

      • Ian Argent says:

        You could go Discus.

        Or, you know, not

        • Sebastian says:

          I’ve thought about that. I like Discus. But I also like my comments being my comments. I’d hate to have Discus go under or something, and then lose every comment. Plus, I like people to be able to post anonymously without having to log in.

          • Ian Argent says:

            Discus’s commentor notifications are terrible; at least however they have it configured at Bloomberg. It’s why I don’t participate much in Megan McArdle’s comments.

  4. Jill says:

    Guns are the most effective method of self defense:

    RESISTING CRIME: THE EFFECTS OF VICTIM ACTION ON THE OUTCOMES OF CRIMES
    JONGYEON TARK and GARY KLECK

    Criminology
    Volume 42, Issue 4, pages 861–910, November 2004

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00539.x/abstract

top