View Single Post
Old January 4, 2013, 10:48 PM   #49
44 AMP
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 16,223
"Statistically most fatal shootings involving a home invader involve individuals who tried to defend their place of residence, so by not confronting the invader, you are less likely to get shot"
See if you can get your friend to give you a source for that statistic.
I believe it is false.

For decades the FBI statistics have shown that people who resist forceably (guns preferred) are injured less in all crimes.

I doubt that has changed. Get a source of that statisic, otherwise its BS.
With a source, we can see what methodology lead to that flawed conclusion.
Sounds to me like the source cherrypicked their data...

Another old, debunked and total BS "statistic" is the one that "you are 43 more times likely to be killed by a gun in your home....."

It was debunked decades ago, but still, talking heads, so called pundits, and the tragically uninformed still repeat it as if it were gospel.

Another thing to consider, about a statistic like that, is no one seems to remember the degree of "more likely" involved. The statistic used as the basis for the conclusion may actually be correct, but that doesn't mean the conclusion is. IF, For example, in a home invasion, you were statistically likely to be shot 0.0023% of the time if were armed and fought back, and 0.0032% of the time if you didn't, then, statistically, you are safer not fighting back.

But in the real world, that is an insignificant difference. I don't believe your friend's source is correct, but even if it was, I think it would be something like the example I gave.
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Page generated in 0.08454 seconds with 7 queries