Like I said, a cell phone with 911 on autodial is the ultimate self defense weapon. I am vindicated.

Violence Policy Center Study on Guns, Self Defense
U.S. Newswire
19 Nov 6:15
Pro-Gun Experts Prove Handguns are Ineffective Self-Defense
Tools New VPC Study Reveals
To: National Desk
Contact: Naomi Seligman of the Violence Policy Center,
202-822-8200, ext. 105; [email protected]

WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 /U.S. Newswire/ -- In response to the
reported spike in handgun sales since the Sept. 11th attacks,
the Violence Policy Center (VPC) today released "Unintended
Consequences: Pro-Handgun Experts Prove That Handguns Are a
Dangerous Choice For Self-Defense."

The 90-page study demonstrates through the writings of
pro-gun experts the ineffectiveness and dangers of handguns
as alleged self-defense tools.

"While the gun industry has greedily hawked its wares in the
aftermath of the Sept. 11 tragedy, they have worked even
harder to keep hidden from the American public a secret they
readily share among themselves-handguns pose grave dangers to
their owners and families," stated Tom Diaz, author of "Unintended
Consequences" and VPC Senior Policy Analyst. "This study is
comprised substantially of writings from pro-gun experts who
readily admit handguns are basically impossible to use
effectively in self-defense."

For example, Massad Ayoob, a legendary firearms instructor and
respected pro-gun author cautions, "The uninitiated tend to make
two kinds of mistakes with firearms: they either use guns when
they shouldn't, or do not use them properly in the rare
circumstances when they should." Ayoob also points out that,
"The average American has more misconceptions about lethal force
in the home than in any other self-defense situation. He not only
has little understanding of his legal position under these
circumstances; he has no idea of how to conduct himself if, by
infinitesimal chance, the day comes when his home actually is
turned into a battleground he must defend against armed
criminals."

In fact, in 1998, for every time that a civilian used a
handgun to kill in self-defense, 51 people lost their lives in
handgun homicides alone. Yet, there have been an increasing number
of news reports that women are a prime target for the gun industry
as first-time handgun buyers. Left out of those reports is the
fact that in 1999 for every one time a woman used a handgun to
kill in self-defense, 120 women were murdered with handguns.

Handguns in the real world-as opposed to the industry's fantasy
world of virtuous defensive gun use-make people who own them much
less safe. The study reveals that according to leading pro-gun
experts the overwhelming majority of people who own handguns:

-- are ignorant of-or ignore-basic handgun safety rules;

-- do not have the necessary handgun combat marksmanship
skills to effectively defend themselves without harming innocent
others; and,

-- are not prepared for the extreme physiological and
psychological effects that the experts, many of whom have on-the
-street law enforcement experience with firearms, agree inevitably
occur in an armed life-or-death confrontation (the only situation
in which lethal force is justified in self-defense).

i am confused...

do we at ar15.com like and respect this study or we think these guys are goofs?

That is really putting a spin on things, what do you expect from VPC.  They totally took Massad Ayoob's words and used them without the ending to that article or the begining.

It is true that some people that buy handguns don't have effective training and don't know their legal rights for using lethal force, but this is another molehill to mountain article.

Anybody want to send the address of VPC to some terrorists, if they are going to blow something up, why can't they get rid of something outrageous and blasphemeous.

Ice

Crap like this pisses me off.  The study is flawed because it only looks at times when the criminal is killed, not every time a gun is used for self defense.  In the vast majority of self defense cases the gun is never even fired and in most cases where a gun is fired the chances of the criminal surviving is very great.  Posts from a couple days ago had stats that under 20% of handgun shootings are fatal.  So when you take 20% of the very few cases where a gun is actually fired of course you will get a really small number, because the law abiding citizens don't go around shooting everyone.  When you compare that number to the large number deaths from criminal activity, of course there is no comparison.  If you compare the number of defensive gun uses to that of the number of firearm related homicides you end up with 3,000,000 to 8,000. In VPC terms, a gun is 357 times more likely to be used in self defense than it is to kill anyone.

Why don't pro-gun organizations like NSSF or SAF or any of the other hunting or shooting organizations have a 3rd party conduct some "research"?

My response to every fool who spouts this crap:
"If handguns are ineffective tools against armed attackers, why do the police carry them?"

Oops! Sorry. That makes sense. Never mind.

The answer to that, of course, is that the police are government employees.  That makes them special.  Only government employees can safely be armed.  After all, they're from the government, and they're there to help us.  No civilian can be trusted with a gun.  They'll shoot a child with it.

Ok, here is some more BS from these guys.
c-rock

From Colonial America to Frontier Gun Control

Early America was vastly different from the handgun-happy images one sees on television, in movies, and in the pages of gun magazines. Serious historians have documented that early Americans had little interest in guns. Until the mid-1800s, owning a gun was surprisingly uncommon. Those who owned firearms almost always owned long guns.

Historian Michael Bellesiles, for example, examined more than a thousand probate records from northern New England and Pennsylvania filed from 1765 to 1790. He found that only 14 percent of household inventories included firearms–and more than half of these were inoperable.22 Colonial settlers got meat mostly from domesticated animals like cows and pigs. When they wanted wild game, they bought it from native Americans or professional hunters, most of whom trapped their prey.23 Prior to 1850, at most only a tenth of the nation's population individually owned guns of any kind.24

I am going to go to their (VPC) website and send them an email saying that after reading this press release I have decided to buy a handgun for self-defense.  I urge the rest of you to do the same.
[b]After reading the VPC press release quoting Massad Ayoob about the dangers of handguns for self-defense I decided to research Mr. Ayoob and read the entire context of his message.  Everyone in the gun community and many Americans that follow this issue and care about freedom are well aware of the gun-ban lobby and its distortion of the facts and the constitution.  After reading the Mr. Ayoob's articles in length I have decided to enroll my girlfriend in a safety course and she will be purchasing a hand-gun very soon.  She is very excited about the prospects of providing for her own self-defense.  I would like to thank the VPC for introducing me to Mr. Ayoob's work.[/b]

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
        ---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

Edited to include my email to VPC

most police officers and probably civilians who carry guns fantasize at some time or other about winning a gunfight."46

Got to stop the coppers from packing, those JBT's are up too no good!
c-rock

Imbroglio, they selectively quoted Massad Ayoob, leaving out a huge chunk of information and putting a huge spin on what they did quote.  However, what Massad pointed out is true.  Most people don't know what they're legal rights and responsibilities are when it comes to the use of deadly force.  That is probably the only area where law enforcement is any better than the common citizen, in so much as that they have actually received training on when to use deadly force, though that doesn't necessarily mean that they adhere to that training.

This is the same Massad Ayoob who offered to help oneshot with his legal troubles, as he serves as an expert witness for cases where gun owners and LEO's are wrongfully prosecuted.  And he's a hardass, as we absolutely hates ND's and won't defend people who don't practice basic gun safety.  I still respect him.

God Bless Texas

"Unintended Consequences: Pro-Handgun Experts Prove That Handguns Are a Dangerous Choice For Self-Defense."

Ironic choice of words for this title....

Wonder if they've read Ross' book? hmmm

Wish I had a few extra copies to send the idiots.  But I suspect they already know the true 'Uninteded Consequences' of their supported policies, and really don't care.  [:(!]

Wow... Mas Ayoob is really anti-gun?  What could possibly be next?  AR15.COM Forums turning into nothing but a bully pulpit for the religious espousing of a select few?

(in all honesty, after completing LFI's Judicious Use of Deadly Force course, the LAST thing you would want to do is to have to shoot anyone)

On TV, the one who has the drop on his opponent yells "Hold it right there," and the gunman freezes, then slowly opens his hand to let his weapon fall. But in real life, the criminal does not freeze at the unexpected challenge....

If you analyze a number of official police reports of confrontations with armed criminals, you will reach the inescapable conclusion that sudden and violent resistance is, statistically, a much more likely response than surrender.83

Another expert agrees that high-capacity pistols are a special problem because users of such handguns use "‘spray and pray' tactics in real-world shootings. Without a doubt, ‘spray and pray' is happening in police-involved shootings....it can be said with certainty that high magazine capacity can cause as many problems as solutions."94 Jim Williamson, roving editor of Gun Week, adds, "The average cop now shoots more, but hits less. Marksmanship has lost out to volume of fire, too often."95 (There is no reason whatever to believe that civilian handgun owners are more disciplined in shooting their semiautomatic pistols than are police, and much reason to believe that they are less disciplined.)

Good to that see all
of the experts are finally
on the same sheet of music.

[i]It is the policy of the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute
that encouraging anyone to purchase a
firearm for home protection is wrong.
The NSSF neither advocates, nor discourages, the use of a firearm for home protection. We believe it is inappropriate for any organization - whether it is NSSF or Handgun Control- to make a blanket recommendation that an individual in Maine, Montana or
Massachusetts should - or should not - maintain a firearm for self protection.

Robert Delfey
President, NSSF[/i]

Unfortunately, the real world is often not so cautious. Even trained police officers unintentionally shoot innocent bystanders. For example, in New York City a police officer who shot at a man with a knife missed and hit a bystander on a bicycle.97 In the same city, 21 innocent bystanders were hit by police bullets fired during 1995 and 1996.98 In North Carolina, a police officer unintentionally shot an 11-year-old boy in the leg while shooting at a pack of wild dogs. The boy was half a mile away at a water fountain near a baseball field.99 In similar incidents in Seattle,100 Oakland,101 and Ft. Lauderdale,102 police officers shooting at threatening dogs unintentionally shot fellow officers. In a separate Seattle incident, police bullets fired in a rush-hour shootout with suspected bank robbers struck an occupied car but did not hit any of the passengers.103 In California, a bank employee was unintentionally shot by a police officer searching for holdup men.104

If police make such mistakes, what can be reasonably expected of the poorly trained civilian—or the civilian with no training, such as Daniel Bennet, the pizzeria owner from Arizona cited earlier. Contrasting the reactions of sworn police officers and civilians in moments of extreme excitement, Ayoob asserts, "Civilians, who generally don't carry guns eight hours a day or receive several hours of justifiable force instruction, tend to be awfully bloodthirsty."105

Disarmament Moves. Is the civilian gun owner prepared when the assailant attempts to disarm him, or simply shoots anyway? Is he aware that some criminals learn specific procedures to do just that? Probably not. But being suddenly disarmed or outgunned is a threat in the real world. "There are many instances where the suspect has drawn a weapon and killed an officer after the officer pointed his weapon and issued the proper challenge. The suspect just plain beat the officer....The Aryan Brotherhood prison gang, along with the Hell's Angels outlaw motorcycle gang, have developed a technique to disarm an officer from a distance of 21 feet. It works in conjunction with an officer's natural lag time."140

Sent to the VPC:
I have recently read your press release concerning personal safety. The misquotes of Massad Ayoob, apall me with your lack of integrety.  Your further use of questionable facts to support your position shows even less.  Those of us that use firearms, whether as  Law Enforcement or a civilian,  practice safety, education  and training. Before you attack or defame anyone, you should put your own house in order.

I see that they are still using quotes from Kellermans book were people are 40 times more likely to be injured if you have a firearm than not. He recently was forced to reduce that number to 4x thanks to pressure from several fact checking scholars. I guess the new 4x doesn't look good so now they use a 51 to 1 ratio to pad the numbers in their favor.

I haven't seen the full article from VPC, only what is summarized in the article posted.  

It is important to note though, even if these handgun experts do agree with VPC's position that handguns are ineffective for self defense, [b]OPINIONS DON'T MAKE FACT!!![/b]  The facts are, as reported in John Lott's book [i]More Guns, Less Crime[/i], that guns are an effective crime deterrant.  VPC can spout off all the bull*hit opinions they want, it still doesn't make it fact!

Helping the Police? The latter of these cases illustrates the high probability that a "virtuous" attempt by an armed civilian to "help" a police officer can go terribly wrong. Ayoob explains:

The legal protection offered to the man who is assisting an officer goes into effect only when the officer asks you to assist him. The man who is just driving by, witnesses a pursuit, and joins in, will not be considered a volunteer police officer....

And never forget that support officers racing in to assist may mistake you for the bad guy and blow you up. "Oops," as we say in the trade.202

The impact of our 65 million handgun population209 can be seen by comparing ourselves to countries that strongly limit access to handguns. For example, in 1995 the U.S. firearms death rate was 13.7 per 100,000; in Canada 3.9 per 100,000; in Australia 2.9 per 100,000; and, in England and Wales it was 0.4 per 100,000.210 The United States is not more violent than other cultures. In fact, as Western Europe grows more violent, the U.S. becomes less so.211 The main difference between those nations and our own is the difference in lethal violence stemming from our easy access to handguns. As public health researcher Susan P. Baker has noted: "People without guns injure people; guns kill them."212

This is another example how the antis make statements that twist the facts.
Look at how they say "...for every time that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense,51 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone." The key phrase here is "used a handgun to [b]kill[/b]". In other words, they're ignoring the times a handgun is used to either wound or just deter the attacker, which is what happens in the majority of the times a handgun is used, according to John Lotts' studies (I don't have the exact # in front of me now).
By omitting a word here and there they can take even pro-gunners words and turn them upside down.

Very well said.  Just this morning, I submitted a self-defense story to Operation Self Defense at [url]keepandbeararms.com/opsd[/url] :

---Begin story---
San Antonio Express-News:
Official headline: S. Side shooting hospitalizes one
http://[url]news.mysanantonio.com/story.cfm?xla=saen&xlb=180&xlc=526410&xld=180[/url]

Story:
Three people forced their way into a house in the 4100 block of Scarlet Oak Street on the East Side about 4:30 a.m. Monday and seriously wounded one of the residents in a volley of gunfire, police reported.

Police reports indicate no motive was apparent.

Amij Garcia, 20, was wounded in the lower back and taken to Brooke Army Medical Center in poor condition.

Witnesses told police that intruders demanded to see "the skinny one," and then attacked Garcia, throwing him on the kitchen floor and then shooting him.

[b]The noise awakened another resident, who got a gun and fired several shots at the intruders through his closed bedroom door.

After they came under fire, the attackers backed out of the front door and fled, police were told.[/b]
--- End story ---

I added the emphasis above.  If the resident had not fired his gun and driven away the attackers, it is likely that Mr. Garcia would likely be dead.  Yet, [u]since none of the attackers were hit and killed[/u], VPC will ignore this story altogether.

I just sent the following to the VPC...

My wife, while not a participant, was a supporter of the Million Mom March and Gun Control.  She had a lot of literature provided by the VPC, MMM and other gun control groups.

While looking through it, I began to see some contradictory information concerning the number of children killed by handguns each year.  I decided to investigate myself.

Over the next few weeks, I collected data from many sources including the FBI, DOJ and DHHS as well as anecdotal information from newspapers, magazines and internet news sources concerning self-defense and firearms.

What I came to learn was disturbing.  Every claim made in the gun control literature was either incomplete (not the whole story), misrepresented or just made up.  Just this week, I read your report, Unintended Consequences.  It again repeats information that I myself have verified as incorrect.  I was interested in the part where you quote a Massad Ayoob so I researched him using the Internet.  I managed to locate the actual article quoted in your report and found that you misrepresented him and what he said.  You took quotes out of context to make them fit your agenda.   would be quite surprised if the gentleman doesn't file a lawsuit for defamation of character and libel against the VPC.  I also bought a copy of John Ross' book "Unintended Consequences" so I could see if you misrepresented him also.  After reading several chapters (of a VERY long book) I can see you have misrepresented him as well.

My wife has reviewed my research and is now quite upset with the MMM and VPC for distributing such blatantly false information.  In fact, after reading the "real" numbers provided by the DOJ and hundreds of self defense stories in the press, she has a new interest in getting knowledge of firearms so she can become educated before jumping on the gun control or pro gun bandwagon.  I guess, in a way, we should thank you for opening our eyes and becoming educated on the matter.  Unfortunately, many people do not take the time or have an interest in becoming educated before jumping to a conclusion.  As long as people like that exist, groups like yours will always have followers.

---------------------------------------
End Part 1

Part 2

I took the opportunity to check out several of the pro-gun sites on the Internet.  The NRA, GOA as well as a couple of enthusiast message boards.  The information I found there seems to agree with the data I collected from the sources mentioned above.  In fact, on the board www.glocktalk.com, I found that in their political message board members go to great lengths to post solid data along with their sources.  When a member fails to provide a source (or even a neutral source) other members will provide the source or will admonish the member for posting incorrect or misleading information.  Several times I saw members remind others that the pro- gun side must be careful to provide only legitimate information from respected sources or else the anti-gun groups will use it against them saying their information cannot be trusted.  That's a far cry from the information published by the VPC, data that has often been known to be incorrect or unsourced for years.  Specifically, the 12 kids a day figure you quote.  Someone at the VPC needs to take a remedial math class as your numbers don't add up, not even close.

You have lost one supporter and helped me to see the truth.  Groups like yours have a political agenda and while your followers will believe anything you print, your leaders are criminal for distributing it knowing all the while it is false.

In some ways, I enjoy having VPC around.  They are so extreme and their research is so bogus, that they end up making the reporters who carry their water look foolish (and thereby open to suggestion and reason).

To see what I mean, check out:
http://[url]www.vpc.org/studies/startcon.htm[/url]

http://[url]www.vpc.org/press/9711eddi.htm[/url]

Be sure to forward these priceless links to reporters who ever quote VPC for any reason.