What's up with anti-gunners saying this all the time?
Posted by DeterminedDemon@reddit | Firearms | View on Reddit | 157 comments
I'm sure we've all heard it several times by now, maybe even seen a few studies trying to claim it to be true. So, what's up with anti-gunners always saying shit like, "If you had to use a gun in self defense, the attacker would just take it from you and use it against you!" are there any resources to determine how many times the owner of the firearm had it wrestled away from them during a defensive situation? I mean, what do you even say in response to this?
perko25@reddit
Gun grabbers are experts at inflating statistics and making problems seem larger than they are. Like the gun death statistics that are actually 2/3 suicides... If you removed suicides the gun deaths in this country are much less significant. The fact of the matter is, they will do and say anything they can to disarm the people so they can impose whatever mandates they want without any consequences.
Reverend179@reddit
To a certain extent it's a conflation of the statistic stating that you're more likely to be shot with your own gun. That stat factors in a lot of situations outside of drawing your firearm, having it taken away from you and subsequently used on you. Having a firearm does statistically increase your chance of being shot by it, the same way as being 100 miles from an automobile means you're at a lessened chance of being injured in an automobile accident.
In short, it wouldn't serve the common interest of anti-firearms groups to drill down the numbers, the same way it doesn't serve them to exclude 18-20 year-olds from shooting death statistics.
Dubaku@reddit
I got in argument with a dude on this site that was saying no one should own a gun because you are more likely to use it on yourself than an attacker. They then called me an "arrogant sociopath who thinks they're above statistics" because I said that there is a 0% chance of me shooting myself given that I'm not suicidal or dumb. There are some people out there that just treat statistics as inevitable. Like they see that x% of people get shot with their own gun and just assume that every day they have one it's a random dice roll on whether or not they get shot.
Automatic_Mammoth684@reddit
You can’t possibly gauge the % of you shooting yourself. You aren’t omniscient.
You could absolutely trip one day, and inadvertently have a sympathetic squeeze as you grab onto something with your other hand. Or drop the gun and try to catch it out of instinct.
Freak accidents happen, and you definitely are not invulnerable just because you’re so smart and want to stay alive. Lots of people who would describe themselves with the same words are dead because they accidentally shot them selves.
If anything your “I can’t possibly accidentally shoot myself due to how perfect I am” is incredibly dangerous and is going to help you become complacent.
Kyle81020@reddit
I think he meant he knows he won’t commit suicide.
Automatic_Mammoth684@reddit
he said or dumb, I feel like that implies no accidents either since he is so smart. being dumb doesnt mean you will commit suicide, and accidentally killing yourself because youre dumb isnt suicide.
Kyle81020@reddit
Fair enough.
Automatic_Mammoth684@reddit
I’m down voted to oblivion but I still think I’m right.
Anyone who thinks they are above mistakes is just inciting complacency into their lives. I am not above mistakes. I have to be vigilant we all times.
I could shoot myself in the face later tonight if I lose concentration and make a mistake.
I have seen many examples of a guy working on his gun in the garage, he drops it and instinct tells him to grab it and bam, shot in the leg.
I saw a Reddit story of a guy who was holding his pistol in his garage and tripped over and accidentally ripped a round through his leg too.
I just feel like “I’m smart and not suicidal bro there’s no way I’m ever gonna rip off a round by accident” is just … not the right attitude to have. It makes it seem like you are so confident in your natural badass abilities than you don’t even feel that complacency is possible.
Kyle81020@reddit
There’s no doubt that nobody thinks they are going to have a ND. Smart people know they’re not immune and arrange things to eliminate the possibility to the maximum extent possible (e.g. no ammo in the same room when dry firing, clearing weapons safely even after visually checking the chamber, not mixing alcohol and firearms, etc.) Smart people also regularly train to further reduce the odds (e.g. regularly practicing safely drawing and holstering with an unloaded weapon, press checking and checking the manual safety every time you handle a firearm, etc.).
Dubaku@reddit
First of all are you just walking around your house with loaded guns all the time? Second of all there are a bunch of things you can do to make your risk of shooting yourself almost 0. That you're seemingly not aware of them makes me question your competency.
SportBrotha@reddit
"almost zero" > zero.
Automatic_Mammoth684@reddit
Being aware of accidents makes me incompetent? lmao
Dubaku@reddit
God I hope you're trolling, because there's no way you can actually so fucking stupid that that is how you interpreted what I wrote.
Tangus999@reddit
I mean there’s always the chance you can swck your own dick if you have one. 🤷♂️
Kindly_Formal_2604@reddit
Hang on what? You are saying that you could never possibly have an accident with a firearm because you are “smart” and “not suicidal”??
Man sometimes it freaks me out how clueless people are.
GoldenGonzo@reddit
Having a ceiling fan inside your house significantly increases the chances of having the ceiling fan fall on your head.
telephantomoss@reddit
I'm a probability theory expert and I cannot stand the "you are more likely" statements. They are almost meaningless.
Weekly_Comment4692@reddit
Like for a living? Is so how tf did you get that job, and what exactly do you do?
telephantomoss@reddit
Math professor. Shit loads of school and studying to get there lol
Weekly_Comment4692@reddit
Ah that makes alot of sense have a good day or night!
MONSTERBEARMAN@reddit
If you own a pool, you are 75% more likely to drown in your own pool than someone who doesn’t own their own pool.
Sianmink@reddit
You're more likely to strike a nail if you own a hammer.
Ornery_Secretary_850@reddit
You have it wrong.
You're more likely to HIT YOUR THUMB with a hammer, if you own a hammer.
Weekly_Comment4692@reddit
Instruction unclear hit dick with hammer send help
Helassaid@reddit
100% of people who died falling out of windows was because they were in a building with windows.
Pandalishus@reddit
Airplanes would like to have a word.
JoseSaldana6512@reddit
And a significant portion of those involved Russia too
DrunkenArmadillo@reddit
Missed a perfect opportunity to use the word defenestration.
johnnyheavens@reddit
You’re more likely to fall off a bike if you own a bike
iveneverhadgold@reddit
It takes a special kind of idiot to drown in a bowl of soup.
I'm probably not going to drown in a pool. I'm probably not going to get shot with my gun.
SPECTREagent700@reddit
Just to be clear; they’re specifically including suicides.
Ballbag94@reddit
Like the study that shows that higher gun ownership means more gun deaths which people use to suggest that gun ownership means more public shootings while ignoring the data that shows increased gun ownership doesn't cause an increase in homicide and that suicides are the reason behind the higher gun deaths
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
And the "Gun violence" numbers being inclusive of suicide. Remember that over 60% of "Gun Violence" is suicide. They specifically do that to pump up their numbers to push their narrative.
When someone hangs themselves, we don't call it "rope violence". When someone jumps off a bridge it's not "bridge violence". When someone cuts their wrists is not "knife violence". Someone standing in front of a train is not "train violence". Only when someone kills themselves with a gun is the method considered the cause of death, and not the motive.
Of the remaining 40% a large section is inner city gang and drug violence.
If you don't commit suicide, and you're not involved in gang or illegal drug activity, your odds of being a victim of gun violence are basically 0.
hikehikebaby@reddit
DV is the other big chunk. The presence of weapons can make DV worse, but domestic violence is a dangerous situation with or without a gun.
90% of personal safety is pretty much avoiding domestic abusers and extremely dangerous areas.
Ballbag94@reddit
100%! That was what I was trying to say but you've made the point much clearer
iroll20s@reddit
I wonder how many of those also count multiple people as the owner? Like in a lot of states you could count the husband and wife as owning a gun. Domestic violence with the gun could then be counted as having your gun used against you.
The other side of that is I think that the antigunners constantly misrepresent the quantity of defensive gun use. Especially were no shots were fired and the mere presence made an attacker reconsider.
New_Ant_7190@reddit
The "mere presence" has benefited me for certain two times. Once when accidentally my firearm was showing and the other in a similar situation when I intentionally exposed it. Didn't have to move as if I was about to draw it just the "mere presence" changed the situation.
legion_2k@reddit
The “more likely to be involved in a shooting event if you own a gun” is a fun one. That’s because they were already in violent encounter and bought a firearm for protection and they were right. Like saying that people that take self defense are more likely to get in a fight.
AptMoniker@reddit
Remember when they casually piled the 18-20 year-olds into the children stat? Lol.
xchaibard@reddit
People still claiming that the number 1 cause of death of children is guns.
Nevermind that the data set excluded 0-1 years old, and included 18-19 year olds.
johnnyheavens@reddit
As they removed the <1yo because their numbers ruined the narrative
WhatTheNothingWorks@reddit
I feel like it’s way more disingenuous than this; they included 18 and 19 year olds (and maybe 20? Not sure) in a statistic of gun violence towards children. and now say that gin violence is the leading cause of death in children when that figure includes adult-aged people.
burn_all_the_things2@reddit
That study also removed all deaths from 0-1. So they changed the front half of their parameter as well as lengthening the back half.
30calmagazineclip@reddit
I think it is even worse. I believe the study included up to 24 year olds as "children". Just shows that they are desperate to torture the data to death in order to present the result that sounds believable enough to fool the average wine mom watching it on The Today Show, without ever actually doing research of their own.
DrunkenArmadillo@reddit
The response should be to cite the number of child soldiers we have in our military according to those same standards.
johnnyheavens@reddit
Some details of your last statement. Generally it’s inclusion of 18-19yo and the exclusion of <1yo that falsely builds the “number one cause of death” for children and “teens” stat. They just ignore the <1yo mortalities and include 2 years of legal adults. Conveniently including more of the organized gun shootings perpetrated by 15-19yo gang members.
anothercarguy@reddit
I view it as a clear admission they have weak wrists
Ok_Calendar_7626@reddit
Watching too many movies i guess?
Taking away someones gun without getting shot is not actually as easy as Bruce Lee makes it look.
Double_Minimum@reddit
Just to be clear, I have no idea who says that and I have never heard it.
I will say, that if you get into say, a fist fight while carrying, that is no longer just a brawl that can be broken up, as you can never let someone else get your weapon. So you either need to deescalate or escalate. If we roll around, I would end up with the gun a fair percentage of the time. You can’t let that happen, so now you are doing what? Pulling you gun over what would have been maybe a 15 second brawl? Or are you rolling around for 15 seconds until the gun comes out or is taken.
Either way, the gun escalates the situation.
Don’t take your guns to town boy, leave your guns at home Bill, don’t take your guns to town….
This is why the statistics show that the most likely place your gun will be used is at home and most likely against someone there (or they did, I don’t track that nonsense, and I carry a gun, but half with the knowledge I may very unlikely need it against a criminal and very much with the knowledge that it may be another clean sheet gun owner that becomes the “fight”- road rage, etc).
Luckily, if you keep in mind that you shouldn’t shoot while drunk, you can remember not to bring your gun to drink, or have it not prepped for shooting out your car, or any other situation that is like the one you said.
And again, never something I have heard from an anti gunner. And I am not sure why you think you would find that answer meaningful in this sub. Is there a non political firearms sub other than the amazing r/NFA and similar? Cause you don’t get the wacky crap in the MP5 sub.
ValiantBear@reddit
It's a meaningless statistic from an inappropriate comparison. The argument they want to make is that you are more likely to get shot by having a gun, and therefore it is safer if you didn't have a gun. But what they aren't comparing is the ratio of how many times a crime is stopped by having a gun to how many times the gun is ineffective at stopping the crime (to include situations where the attacker shoots you with your own gun). That's the actual comparison that they think they're making, but as far as I know, there is only the CDC study from way back when that said there were millions of defensive uses of firearms each year, and past that the field of studies is pretty barren. Turns out, we don't actually want to research these things, lest they give us data that goes against the idea of disarmament.
greatgeezer@reddit
I'd say, Maybe from a pussy like you, but not me.
clanga-man@reddit
“They’ll take it and use it against you!”
See Kyle Rittenhouse when a wife beater tried to take his rifle away by the barrel.
therealrrc@reddit
If there were a fire , it would just take your fire extinguisher from you! Its an old wives tale.
CplWilli91@reddit
Usually the gun is taken by folks open carrying and don't have weapon retention techniques... outside of that it's very minimal
KiloIndia5@reddit
I suspect they are imagining a situation where you pull a gun and threaten to shoot a crazy person if they don't stop acting crazy. They watch the movies where the good guy points a shotgun at the bad guy threatening to shoot. The bad guy laughs, then the good guy racks the pump action for that "prove you are serious" effect. When actually you just showed that your gun was unloaded the whole time. Point is: Never threaten anyone with a gun.
ThePretzul@reddit
If you’re drawing a gun on someone it’s because you intend to use it.
This doesn’t mean you have to use it immediately or at all if the threat de-escalates or backs off as a result of you drawing the gun. That is a very valid and preferable alternative to being forced to shoot somebody, and if it works out that way the gun still did its job of protecting you without ever needing to fire a shot.
It does mean that you don’t pull a gun out “as a warning” in a situation where you wouldn’t want to use it.
KiloIndia5@reddit
So you hesitate to see if they back off or charge you. That's what they were talking about.
C0D3PEW@reddit
How could someone take it from me when I have a gun?? I never could understand that?
Kindly_Formal_2604@reddit
Ive seen several videos of someone using a gun to attack someone and the defender gets it and kills the attacker. How could they take it from the attacker, if the attacker has a gun?
tex-mania@reddit
I’ve seen those movies too. I really like the ones where the kung fu master touches the side of the gun and it falls apart in his hands. That’s always my concern is that if I hold my gun wrong it will just collapse.
Kindly_Formal_2604@reddit
I’m talking about actual self defense encounters caught on tape and analyzed, dingus.
iveneverhadgold@reddit
That why babies shouldn't carry guns. I had to get into a baby's face once because it wouldn't stop fucking crying. I thought checking an infant in a stroller would be safe, but the son of a bitch drew his pistol. My training kicked in and he left me no choice. I dove in and wrestled it out of his tiny hands and mag dumped him.
Kindly_Formal_2604@reddit
Fights are dynamic. You ever done any force on force training? It’s easier to be disarmed than you would think.
ThePretzul@reddit
They are certainly welcome to try, but it would be difficult for them to accomplish with 3-6 extra holes in them.
eteague30@reddit
Because all of these "studies" are done by people incapable of reality based thinking.
battleshipgrey61@reddit
I think part of it is that some people buy a gun for self defense without ever confronting the forethought of actually shooting someone. So when a deadly force situation arises, they introduce their gun and think they've just won, but they don't have the fortitude to actually use it, thus it gets taken from them and they lose (and so will others since they gave a bad guy a free gun to use on others now).
I think anti-gunners love this saying because they're unconsciously admitting that they also don't have the fortitude to use a gun on someone, therefore "no one should have a gun." Just my $0.02 on that topic.
GoodDog9217@reddit
It’s happened. Gun owners don’t claim that it hasn’t or that it can’t. But the response is “so what?” If I’m in a situation in which I’d be using my gun, then I’d definitely be worse off without a gun than with it. Just using super rough logic: I’d have a 50/50 chance of saving myself being armed and a zero chance if unarmed.
glowingjello@reddit
I've a one word response to that, that's never failed to make heads explode.
RIttenhouse.
xD
BeenisHat@reddit
Getting reliable data on just how many defensive gun uses there are in the USA is a challenge among itself. Some only count actual shots fired, some count simply having a gun in the situation as a DGU. The studies are all over the place and it's the methodology and what actually counts as a DGU. The National Crime Victimization Study states around 77,000 per year. A study from the school of business at Georgetown University claimed 1.6 million.
So you're looking for a very specific instance inside a data set that varies by a couple orders of magnitude depending on conditions.
If you can find that data, or calculate that data, you could likely publish that info as a meta-analysis and get your name on a scholarly paper, and submit for peer review. Since I couldn't find it, I'm guessing it's either locked behind some paywall, or it doesn't exist. Given the fact that its such an obscure piece of data, I'm guessing they couldn't find it either and you're probably good to call them on speaking directly out of their ass.
PrestigiousOne8281@reddit
“Never argue with stupid people. They’ll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
Anti gunners fall under the ‘stupid’ category. Therefore, just tell them ‘cool story bro’ and move on, life’s too short to get into pissing matches with idiots.
iveneverhadgold@reddit
Gun control advocates take an oversimplified view on a multifaceted issue. They are right that getting rid of guns would curb gun violence, but they are only right in a vacuum. Their reactionary bandaid measures do more harm than good.
aabum@reddit
To be fair, far too many gun owners also have an oversimplified view of gun rights. "Durr, 2nd amendment, durr, yup." As they grab another box of crayons to much on. (Not to take anything away from Marines. You can continue to munch on your favorite color of crayon! lol)
The best way to sum it up is in any given group typically there are more intellectually challenged folks than intelligent folks.
TalbotFarwell@reddit
That’s one of the things I try to point out to them though. Even if all guns magically disappeared from the US, we’d see a drastic increase in knife and machete and axe violence, people using crossbows and compound bows, hammers, pipe wrenches, slingshots, baseball bats, glass bottles, bricks, homemade bombs and flamethrowers, bare fists, vehicle ramming attacks, etc.
The problem isn’t firearms ownership, it’s that our society is fundamentally sick on a mental level (and I’d say a spiritual level, atheists and agnostics may disagree) and until we address the root causes of violence it won’t get better by simply banning and/or confiscating firearms.
iveneverhadgold@reddit
Idk if our society is fundamentally sick. Most people are fine. But at scale there are bound to be some blood lusting psychopaths walking around. When they are suicidal and lack self preservation, it becomes a recipe for disaster.
You could spend a lifetime finding ways to restrict their access to sharp objects and never address the fact that these freaks are walking in the streets.
couchwarmer@reddit
If it isn't fundamentally sick it is well on the way to being so. When I was growing up I think I knew one person who engaged in self-harm at least once.
My kids and their friends? It's at least half of them. This started before covid hit. It got worse after. And then we have the suicide attempts and one completion among the group.
At first we thought maybe just their small crowd. Yeah, no. Not after the numerous discussions with teachers, counselors, and principals at our local schools as our kids progressed through the grades. Every year they need to hire more mental health people, and it's never enough to handle the load. Nevermind the ever growing counts of student violence.
There is clearly something not right, and it's getting worse.
RimfireRand@reddit
Well stated.
EnD79@reddit
The attacker can't do that, if you already shot them. So what this person is saying, is that they are not actually willing to fire the gun in self defense, and don't think that you are either. Not everyone can actually see themselves being prepared to take a life, even in self defense, and that is okay.
You have to listen to what people are really telling you.
absentblue@reddit
This is sometimes tied to a study that you’re more likely to die by a firearm if you have a firearm in the home. If you look into that particular study though the group it used was in a Philly ghetto and was pretty much 100% gang related deaths.
Mises2Peaces@reddit
In a comic book world, your character would pull a gun on his character and challenge him to prove his point.
ThePretzul@reddit
In the real world the person trying to prove the point would get domed because, unlike the comics, it takes less time to pull a trigger than it does to reach out and redirect the muzzle of a gun held by someone else.
Mises2Peaces@reddit
https://i.giphy.com/xT9IgHCTfp8CRshfQk.webp
sailor-jackn@reddit
Well, the politicians and gun congress groups know this is not true, but they also know that too many people will believe it to be true, if they say it often enough. And, unfortunately, they are right.
Sandman0@reddit
It does happen. Almost certainly it happens most often to people who find out in the moment that they can't pull the trigger, or waited far too long to make the decision to shoot.
It's nowhere near as common as the "just be a victim" crowd wants to claim.
101bees@reddit
All I hear is "there's a chance it might be used against you, so we'd rather you just not have a chance at all."
ldsbatman@reddit
There’s an old bullshit study where an anti gunner tracked some gun deaths. He questioned a bunch of people who had relatives get shot in their own home and came to the conclusion that intruders stole their guns from the owner and then shot them. The study was deeply flawed. He had an answer that he wanted a specific reason for and built the study around that. Most of the people who got shot were known drug dealers. He never verified where the guns came from in the first place. The anti gunner groups ran with it.
It’s bullshit framed in a reasonable way to scare ignorant people.
It’s like the old saying “9 times out of 10, the person you shoot in your home is someone you know.” Partially true in that most homicides aren’t strangers. Wrong in that the police consider it a known person if it’s the crackhead who lives down the street from you.
TooTiredMovieGuy@reddit
If you have links to the study and the debunking, that'd be awesome to have
ldsbatman@reddit
Don’t have the links anymore but I believe it was a Kellerman study in the 90s.
cullingofwolves@reddit
I would say "ok" and then continue not engaging with stupid people
HaiHaiNayaka@reddit
As tempting as that course of action is, those people do vote, which does effect gun owners.
Vast_Meal_5990@reddit
I do try to have logical convos until they become absurd, then I disengage!
CaptN_Cook_@reddit
Yea you can't win with those people
PastAdvertising3582@reddit
This is the answer
byond6@reddit
If it's so easy to take a gun from someone then I'll just take it back.
If the attacker takes it from me again I'll just take it back again.
We can stand there and take the gun from each other until the police show up.
🤷🏼♂️
Grandemestizo@reddit
That’s the most sheep brained bullshit I’ve ever heard.
11systems11@reddit
Anti-gunners also seem to be obsessed with penis size, claiming that all gun owners have small ones, which is statistically impossible given the number of gun owners.
I'm in the average range btw ;)
Stellakinetic@reddit
That statistic mostly means suicide. Of course, someone who is planning to off themselves is more likely to use a gun if they own a gun….
Agent-Steel@reddit
Mhmm, all those bad guys with guns are constantly getting them wrestled away by the good guys without guns 🙄
Tangus999@reddit
Bc they are beta males who will not defend. There three responses. Fight Flight Or freeze. They’ve been taught they are weak and will not defend themselves. In nature. They would be eaten and their genes not continue.
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
Then ignore them. They're being stupid.
FinancialInevitable1@reddit
These stats include things like suicide and domestic violence, so it's a bit misleading. It's possible that if you're in a fight your gun could get wrestled out of your hands and used against you, but with this stat it's mostly referring to living situations in which victims live in households where their abuser has access to firearms, sometimes belonging to the victim themselves, puts them in greater danger.
Oni_Shiro37@reddit
So when I worked at the gun shop, we would tell this to people who thought all they had to do was buy a gun and carry it and they would be safe. No range time, no self defense classes, no experience. Another word for them is an idiot. You had to tell them things that were common knowledge in gun culture like "No, that's a magazine, a Glock doesn't have a "clip". They exhibit no respect for the tool they were purchasing, another red flag. I refused to sell to multiple people because of stupid shit like pointing the gun I handed them to check out at their friend's head. So what you gotta remember is this: Think about how stupid the average person is, then remember half of people are even dumber than that. In all likelihood, someone who has practiced long enough to develop their gun muscles doesn't have to worry about it being physically taken unless you start off in close quarters against a mismatched opponent.
AspirantVeeVee@reddit
ask them if they would like to try and take yours
marston82@reddit
They’re talking about themselves. They know they would be so incompetent with a gun, they would literally give it to their attacker and get killed.
RabicanShiver@reddit
If someone said that to me I would probably tell them to try it. And tuck my thumb under the edge of my shirt... Then whistle that little old Western standoff tune.
real_witty_username@reddit
Attempting to argue a counter position when the entire underlying argument is completely disingenuous is a fool's errand.
Miserable_Goal_9402@reddit
My response is always sarcasm. Something along the lines of, “dude, I’m not that lucky to die and never pay taxes again.” Just to throw them completely off
cowboy3gunisfun@reddit
I personally blame this on Hollywood. If you look at movies and TV shows, the "good guy with a gun" they show is always taken down. Usually, they either just get themselves killed, or they will even be responsible for others being injured or killed when their gun drops from their hands and suddenly discharges into a random bystander.
Scenes like this just reinforce in the mind of your anti gunner the idea of "guns are bad and will only get you and others killed."
risbia@reddit
Well then I would just take the gun back from them, now who looks silly?
iveneverhadgold@reddit
Only for you to realize he stole the pin from your grenade.
TickTick_b00m@reddit
In most close quarter self defense situations (within 5ft) an untrained individual is more likely to have any instrument used against him. So how true it is depends on the person. So you can apply that to guns just as easily as knives, batons, etc. I believe pepper spray is the outlier.
anyway, all the more reason to pair firearms training with self defense training!
RimfireRand@reddit
I wonder if a simple Force-on-Force exercise would end this type of argument? Using inert training firearm, can the Anti-gunner reach out from various distances, take a step toward me , grab the(training gun or unloaded gun) firearm and grab the barrel before I pull the trigger? I understand some may state this violates firearm safety, but object lessons can be valuable. I wonder . . . .
fatman907@reddit
That’s just poor logic. I’d bet another hippy just for-fed that to him or her.
ZukoTheHonorable@reddit
While that is certainly a risk, it is profoundly low on the list of shit you need to worry about in a shooting situation.
9bikes@reddit
>that is certainly a risk, it is profoundly low
It is a risk that can be mitigated by a gun owner who puts in some effort in preparing for the possibility of needing to use a firearm for self-defense.
I had multiple people tell me "I have a gun for self-defense.", only for me to find out that they have never fired it. That sounds like a recipe for disaster, should using it ever become necessary.
I do not think that every gun owner necessarily needs to become a hardcore firearms enthusiast who spends every weekend at the range. But they absolutely need to become very proficient at their gun's safe operation and spend enough time shooting to become reasonably accurate with it.
stchman@reddit
Idiots abound.
FremanBloodglaive@reddit
Because they believe what you see on r/Bullshido.
StreetAmbitious7259@reddit
Criminals don't need your gun they have plenty of their own 😳
agatathelion@reddit
Well usually the bad guy can't do anything when he's been kurt cobained all over the walls...
Dick_Miller138@reddit
I would ask them to demonstrate
stugotsDang@reddit
This and the other argument we saw other day in another group where the person who safely stores their hunting rifles in a safe and it doesn’t burn and all they did was talk shit and say “muh guns, muhrica.” Perfect example of them thinking you shouldn’t own ANY of them.
minorcross@reddit
Maybe if it was you but if I drew on someone they comply or they die
Hands in the air, fuck.
Proof_Bathroom_3902@reddit
Well, but then they would try to use my gun against me, and i would take it away from them. Then, we would go through a cycle of disarming each other until one of us gave up.
ForQueenandCountry82@reddit
The anti gun crowd doesn't want you owning a gun. It's that simple. The end game is to disarm all law-abiding people. They use any ridiculous argument to justify it.
TrilobiteTerror@reddit
Anti-gunner: "If you had to use a gun in self defense, the attacker would just take it from you and use it against you!"
Me: "Do you think that's realistically likely?"
Anti-gunner: "Definitely."
Me: "Then by your own logic, if an attacker used a gun on me, it's realistic likely to just take the gun from the attacker and use it against them."
Anti-gunner:
DeafHeretic@reddit
"Go ahead - try to take it from me"
TrilobiteTerror@reddit
https://youtu.be/-kmFQmzBwtU
Pliskin_Hayter@reddit
Because anti-gunners assume guns need massive amounts of training to be able to use effectively enough for self defense. They physically cannot fathom that its not all that difficult to squeeze off a few rounds quickly in close range and not hit everything except the thing you're aiming for.
They assume that everyone who disagrees with them is simply incompetent.
17_ScarS@reddit
Who gives a shit what any of those clowns say? Maybe the bad guy would take it away from the anti gun morons. Fortunately we aren't them.
Stop giving stupid people your time.
Averagecrabenjoyer69@reddit
Because they're too weak or cowardly to defend themselves, so they project that onto others and basically think anybody that's law abiding is harmless and helpless.
thor561@reddit
Biased studies and stats aside, this is a very valid observation. Most of these people simply aren’t capable of using a firearm in self defense, so if they somehow had one, they would be so frightened of using it that someone would be able to overpower them and take it. So they just assume anyone that would own a gun is just as mewling as they are.
I have no desire whatsoever to kill someone. It would probably mess me up for a long time. But I’d rather deal with that than be dead or see myself or a loved one victimized. These people don’t think like that, or they’d agree with us lol
TheGreatTesticle@reddit
They say a lot of stupid shit. If they're not willing to put thought into their arguments, why should I?
Argument_Enthusiast@reddit
If you wanted to engage them, you should simply repeat them as a question. “An unarmed person would take my gun and use it against me?”. Don’t say anything else, just let them answer. They’ll want to rationalize, but there is no rational answer so they will stop.
NoNotThatScience@reddit
Has anyone ever done the experiment with a permanent marker being used as a substitute for a knife. You tell someone to disarm you as if it were a knife and watch th send result.. they will have marker lines all over their hands, arms and other places
Lord_Larper@reddit
Winning a physical confrontation is so alien to these people it may as well be fiction in their mind. It’s so far out of the realm of possibilities they’d rather some thug do whatever they want rather than piss them off by living
alsoknownasvipe@reddit
You don't. You let them wallow in their retardation and hope that someday they get attacked and removed from the gene pool.
Apprehensive-Low3513@reddit
“Wow, I didn’t realize it was so easy to disarm someone with a gun. We should get rid of background checks and give all criminals guns so we can just take it from them when they try and attack anyone!”
ShakeZula30or40@reddit
I file that one under the same folder of “why not go for a leg/arm shot” because it’s always from some idiot who’s watched too many movies and thinks people are going to gun-fu it out of your hands like Jackie Chan.
Special_EDy@reddit
I mostly see it from pro-firearm people talking about open carry.
Efficient_Mobile_391@reddit
It happens in the movies all the time
MONSTERBEARMAN@reddit
Well, if that’s how it works then you just “Take it back” from them. Right?
HerbDaLine@reddit
This is one of those "it is easier to attack than to defend" situations. They throw the fear based attack that you are likely to die when a criminal takes your firearm and uses it against you. Then pro 2A person's\groups must go on the defense and try to alleviate those fears which is very hard to do once some of the citizens start to believe that nonsense. I would love it if pro 2A went on the offense in the same kind of way.
I run into the same problem with some liberal friends who believe that self defense can be accomplished by shooting knees or hands instead of center mass. I explain how incorrect that thinking is but they want their self defense without risking the death of an attacker. I offer to teach them how to shoot so they can experience just how hard it will be for them to hit a non moving target. Only one has thought about taking me up on the offer. It is easier to believe Hollywood shooting fiction than experiencing the truth.
SakanaToDoubutsu@reddit
I call this sort of reasoning "situationalism", you have a foregone conclusion that you're trying to justify so you craft a hypothetical "situation" where the only logical conclusion is the one that justifies your own position.
This sort of line of reasoning can really only gain traction when we're reliant on observational data, as when you have access to experimental or experiential data invalid opinions can be quickly dismissed. For example, you can claim the 410 is the best duck hunting cartridge there is, however you'd best demonstrate this effectiveness with tailgates full of birds and hope people achieve the same success you do because people can validate your claims through their own experiences. However there's no such equivalent in the claim that the Taurus Judge in 410 is the best option for self-defense because there's no way to ethically, legally, reliably, or safely get into enough gunfights to justify that claim nor can anyone effectively validate it either.
The only antidote is to present data in the form of observational data, and can you justify your claims with reasonable sets of analogs that justify your assumptions are reasonable. Right now the only reasonable source of this kind of data is Active Self Protection with their extensive backlog of video evidence that justifies their claims.
ScionR@reddit
One thing you'll find with anti gunner arguments are that they will spew out the most pessimistic, worst case scenario arguments like the on you mentioned.
"You'll probably just end up shooting your kid in the dark"
"The bullet will probably hit someone in the next wall"
And a recent one:
"What do you need your guns for? Looting? Even then if looters were to rob you, it's probably better for you to give them your stuff bc they will always be armed anyway."
Drakpalong@reddit
it comes from an extrapolation from one of the conclusions of a 1990's study that was the basis for Clinton's anti gun campaign. The study found that having a gun in the house increases the odds of being injured by a gun, both from gun crime, as well as negligent discharges. The study itself was suspicious (and politically motivated, specifically to find results to back Clinton up in what he already wanted to do), and there are reasons to doubt many of its conclusions, but not this one. This is just obvious. What it does *not* say is that a criminal will disarm you and shoot you with your own gun, but that's a liberal brain rot thats stuck for how self-righteous it makes them feel when speaking to gun owners they consider to be ignorant lumpenprols.
Stevarooni@reddit
It conflated correlation with causation. You can't be shot with your own gun if you don't have one, but you're more likely to own a gun if you're in an area where having one makes sense.
AppropriateFault5578@reddit
Molon Labe
WTM762@reddit
They say that because they are stupid, weak cowards.
Paladin_3@reddit
A lot of those statistical arguments come up because they include suicides in the numbers. Because so many folks off themselves, statistically, there's a higher chance that the gun owner will do that than have to defend themselves in their home.
Statistics really ignore a lot of mitigating circumstances. If you don't have mental health issues and you do practice gun safety and train with your weapon, you're going to be outside the statistical norms by quite a bit. The chance that you'll suicide is lower and the chance that you have a negligent discharge or accidentally shoot yourself or a family member go down dramatically.
Not to mention that anti-gunners always ignore the number of times per year a gun is used in self-defense or stop a crime. They never want to admit there's any upside to owning a gun.
Konstant_kurage@reddit
They are looking at it from the only perspective they have ever considered. Their own. They think that because that’s what would happen to them. They think only the police and military can use guns. To them all self defense stuff is just Hollywood or people like us who are mentally ill and not real.
TheTrashPanda69@reddit
Honestly it’s a based statistic. It’s like saying you shouldn’t live near water because your statistically are more likely to die from drowning. While yes you are more likely to drown you also can easily prevent it with mursurse like knowing how to swim (in this case it’s getting to the gun and eliminating the threat)
EatBurger99@reddit
"Nuh uh"
ReasonablyRedacted@reddit
I'm pretty sure that's the whole purpose of a sling. But I feel like the honest answer is closer to that anti-gunners know they are losing the sales pitch to the masses as more and more people, every year, regardless of political party or influence, are acquiring firearms.
So now they're just attempting to gas-light people into thinking them acquiring the necessary tools to keep themselves, their families, and the property safe is a bad idea because it gives the attacker the advantage. It doesn't make any sense and I don't give anti-gunners the time of day, anyway.
MandingoChief@reddit
Anti-gunners throw that at people disingenuously, because they’re fools who’ve been brainwashed into believing “gUnZ R bAaAAAd!!!1!”
Though in all seriousness: it is useful for people to make sure that they train with their weapon of choice for realistic scenarios, so that the muscle memory is there, should you ever need it. Just as it’s useful to know how to use the fire extinguisher under your sink long before the fire starts in your kitchen.
(But I’m probably preaching to the choir on this point.)
ChevyRacer71@reddit
I think they’re projecting their own unwillingness to shoot an attacker onto everyone else. If I have a gun drawn on someone, either I’m not letting go them get close enough to take it, or if they’re already close enough to take it my mind is made up to use it immediately, and I’m gripping it strong.
ExoticGeologist@reddit
It's a misinterpreted statistic I believe. Something along the lines of "If you own a firearm, it's more likely to be used against you than to defend you".
They are falsely interpreting it like that because it's useful to their agenda. It doesn't matter if you're defenseless or armed, the outcome is the same regardless, so give up your guns
What the statistic really means is 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides and sadly if you own a gun and choose to commit suicide you'll likely use the gun to do so.
trs21219@reddit
Yup. Its similar to the "if you own a gun, your chances of dying by one goes up by X%!!!!1"... well no shit, if you own a car your chances of dying in a car crash goes up too. It still remains that if you're not suicidal, and you dont try to be Walter White, your chances of dying by a gun are ridiculously small.
RavenShrike459@reddit
I’ve certainly heard that, I’ve never seen anything aside from a stupid suspect going after a police officers gun. Generally, if someone is being enough of a threat towards you, you draw your gun before they are on top of you, and then shoot them if they’re still stupid enough to keep coming at you…