Having a debate and my opponent says she took a class from her police dept and they told her most weapons are used against the person that has it when an intruder is involved.

Now I know this is incorrect, but how can I back it up with facts?

It happens more than you think...

EDIT: Not properly trained.

go to keepandbeararms.com and download gunfacts vX.X - link is on the right side of the page.

The info you need should be in there.

If that is true then you should leave your gun in plain sight near the door.

It will be used against the intruder.

Thanks- going to it now.
Fiero- you're right about lack of training I'm afraid.

I think the paradigm of the person that has their own gun used on them is someone who (1) buys a gun and one box of ammo, (2) puts the gun and ammo in a drawer and never fires it or learns how to use it.

When I took my CHL class a few years ago, a policeman that was doing the fingerprinting told us to shoot at least 50 rounds a month. I'm a bit of an overachiever in that department. You should also practice shooting with your weak hand. For the past 3 years, each time I have gone to the range, I try to shoot 35-40% of the rounds with my weak (left) hand. While it was difficult at first, I am now about as good with my left hand as my right in shooting a pistol. Shoot both with a single hand grip and with a conventional two-hand grip.

We all should also set at home and practice dry firing and quick loading (empty) mags in our defense weapon. I have done this a lot, and I am much more proficient at it than I used to be.

So what did the police department advise her to do?  Give them what they want, it's only money?  That is an ecellent idea and something I would agree with.  But what if the guy wants YOU?  Beg him to at least use a condom and be gentle?  What if he wants you dead?  Hope it is not painful?  Hope is not a plan.

I encounter many firearms "trainees" and I would not recommend a gun, knife, pepper spary, etc... to anyone not properlly trained or with the correct mind set.  The best defence is to be situationally aware and not get into a comprimising situation in the first place.

Quoted: So what did the police department advise her to do?  Give them what they want, it's only money?  That is an ecellent idea and something I would agree with.  But what if the guy wants YOU?  Beg him to at least use a condom and be gentle?  What if he wants you dead?  Hope it is not painful?  Hope is not a plan. I encounter many firearms "trainees" and I would not recommend a gun, knife, pepper spary, etc... to anyone not properlly trained or with the correct mind set.  The best defence is to be situationally aware and not get into a comprimising situation in the first place.

I asked that same thing, almost word for word- waiting fro her response.

I've also "opened the eyes" on one of them and she now says she wants a gun and the training to go along with it.

Now she has posted a few snips of reports where some elderly people had guns taken from them.
So I went to the NRA site and got about ten Armed Citizen stories and explained that for every one take-away story she produced, I could produce ten Armed Citizen reports.
I've also cited several quotes from law enforcement  and other sources but she has yet to address my posted facts- I expected that.

If it's so easy, why didn't the students at VT just "take away" the killer's gun.  

Stupid.  

ellegon.com/features/data/something/

But my gun will be taken away and used against me!

"A fairly common theme that runs through anti-gun writing is that, if a woman is trying to resist rape with a handgun, the gun will be taken away and used against her.

"It's a theory, I guess. Sorta. I understand it happens on TV fairly frequently—on dramatic shows, where what happens is controlled by the scriptwriter, director, and producer.

"In real life, though? With literally millions of permit holders in the United States, and with 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year, if this was a real problem, wouldn't it have happened by now?

it continues

"Over the ten years that I knew the late Darrell Mulroy, he often publicly scoffed at the idea. And loudly. (Darrell was like that.) To him, it didn't make sense. Would a rapist, involved in a confrontation, risk his life? Wouldn't he just turn around and flee?

"It didn't make sense to me, either. Assume that some percentage of rapists actually tried to disarm their erstwhile victims. Some, perhaps, would be successful—but, surely, not all of them. Where's all the dead rapist bodies? Where's all the reports of the survivors talking about how their guns were taken away from them?

"I can't find them. Can you?

"Darrell never tended to put anything tentatively.

"I am an author and firearms self defense specialist. I have been involved in a highly visible search for the illusive female that has been disarmed and the gun used against her. I have yet to find a single case. This is often the reason women are told not to use a firearm. On its face it "sounds good", but seems to have no basis in fact. I have posted on countless newsgroups, asked on radio/tv talk shows and in interviews. I was on KRLD in Dallas Texas being interviewed when this was said. " NAME ONE", I snapped. In fact, I offered $l0,000 cash to anyone that could find me such a case in the three hours we had left on the show. NOBODY CLAIMED THE MONEY. We were on the Texas Radio Network.

"I find where a woman was holding off a violent spouse with a handgun and when police arrived they did indeed disarm her and took her gun. A few days later the husband returned and killed her. . . but not with her gun; the police had that.

"Perhaps with your resources you could aid me in this search. I feel this argument is a feeble "urban legend" that needs to be put to rest, and its content implies females are stupid and unable to defend themselves from the powerful male. In my experience three of my female students are alive today because of my training and would not have survived the encounter if it wasn't for training and a firearm.

"-- Darrell E. Mulroy

"Darrell died earlier this year; he never did find a report.

"I haven't, either.

"What are the facts? I dunno, for sure. But I've got my suspicions. Why is it that nobody can seem to point to this actually happening, ever? With rape as regrettably common as it is, and with millions of women permit holders across the United States, if this does happen, we should be seeing some reports—women who report having had their gun taken away, or having killed their attacker. We should have many; we have none."

Just let the bad guy take it after you empty the klips into him.

All a case of not hesitating...split second decisions need to be made...kill or be killed in a situation like that

I believe the line about guns in the home being more likely to be used against you comes from faulty logic and blatant manipulation of the statistics for an agenda by Dr. Kellerman.

Basically, what was determined is that, of course if there is a gun in your house it's more likely to be used against you than if you didn't have a gun in your home. How can a gun be used against you in your home if there isn't a gun in your home?

I've also read that Dr. Kellerman's study conclusion was actually "A gun in the home is more likely to be used against you."

Which is a crafty way of wording, because his study includes guns brought into the home by the intruder. This conclusion was then easily misinterpreted to mean that if you have a gun in your home for protection it's more likely to be used against you. Which was then transferred onto the idea that if you have a gun for self defense at all that it is more likely to be used against you. All of which is totally ridiculous, especially if you are trained.

Here is more about his studies (also try googling his name for more):

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,7217,00.html

Dr. Kellerman claimed in a 1986 New England Journal of Medicine study that having a firearm in the home is counter-productive. He reported "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." Dr. Faria points out that Dr. Kellerman's analysis ignored the vast majority of benefits from defensive uses of guns. Since only 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, Dr. Kellerman's study underestimated the protective benefits of firearms -- in terms of lives saved, injuries prevented and related medical costs -- by a factor of as much as 1,000. In a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study, Dr. Kellerman again reported guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than the assailants. In addition to repeating the errors of his prior research, Dr. Kellerman used studies of populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction such as a history of arrest, drug abuse and domestic violence. Moreover, 71 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who didn't live in the victims' household, using guns presumably not kept in the home. Dr. Kellerman's conclusions depend on an apparent higher rate of homicides among households with guns compared to households without guns (45 percent vs. 36 percent). But Dr. Kellerman ignored his own data indicating there were enough false denials of gun ownership to reverse this result. Controversy has also swirled around Dr. Kellerman's claim that gun availability increases the risk of suicide. Dr. Faria says "the overwhelming available evidence compiled from the psychiatric literature is that untreated or poorly managed depression is the real culprit behind high rates of suicide." Backing this up is the observation that countries with strict gun control laws and low rates of firearm availability -- such as Japan, Germany and the Scandinavian countries -- have suicide rates that are 2 time to 3 times higher than for the U.S. In these countries, people simply substitute for guns other suicide methods such as Hara-Kiri, carbon monoxide suffocation, hanging, or chemical poisoning.

Lack of training. Anyone who lets their gun get away does something wrong.

The "argument" that "You are more likely to be shot by your own gun," comes from a conclusion derived from statistics:

"Guns are more likely to be used against their owner than an intruder"


Which is absolutely true, as long as you count suicide by gun as "used against the owner."


Data doesn't lie, it's statistics, the manipulation of data, that lies.

Rule:

Don't get in debates with women, children, and idiots.



I read that on teh arfcomz!

Quoted: I think the paradigm of the person that has their own gun used on them is someone who (1) buys a gun and one box of ammo, (2) puts the gun and ammo in a drawer and never fires it or learns how to use it. When I took my CHL class a few years ago, a policeman that was doing the fingerprinting told us to shoot at least 50 rounds a month. I'm a bit of an overachiever in that department. You should also practice shooting with your weak hand. For the past 3 years, each time I have gone to the range, I try to shoot 35-40% of the rounds with my weak (left) hand. While it was difficult at first, I am now about as good with my left hand as my right in shooting a pistol. Shoot both with a single hand grip and with a conventional two-hand grip. We all should also set at home and practice dry firing and quick loading (empty) mags in our defense weapon. I have done this a lot, and I am much more proficient at it than I used to be.

Add in 1 handed reloading drills and FTF drills and you have my monthly routine.

Quoted: It happens more than you think... EDIT: Not properly trained.

How is it possible that a guy with over 10,000 posts on a gun board could repeat stupid anti-gun bullshit like this on the internet?


It happens a hell of alot less than your think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!1 Get your facts straight.

If you want to repeat anti gun propaganda, go somewhere else.

Quoted: The "argument" that "You are more likely to be shot by your own gun," comes from a conclusion derived from statistics: "Guns are more likely to be used against their owner than an intruder" Which is absolutely true, as long as you count suicide by gun as "used against the owner." Data doesn't lie, it's statistics, the manipulation of data, that lies.

Add:
Domestic dispute
ND/AD

Well, it looks like with the help I got here we can chalk one up in the win column.
If anyone is interested, the thread is here:
forums.enctoday.com/index.cfm?page=topic&topicID=13372&start=1

It is still moving along at about 12 pages (strayed off for a few posts but came back to topic) but it looks like at least one fence-sitter is seeing the light and a couple others finally chimed in to support my arguments. I don't typically get involved in debates online but this particular forum is made up of people in my local area and I wanted to try to get involved on the local level and have some affect on their views.
I think I did okay- if anyone gets a chance read over it and let me know what you think.