this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2026
388 points (97.8% liked)
Crazy Fucking Videos
8691 readers
749 users here now
Dive into the World of Insane Videos!
Rules
- No hate speech of any kind.
- Content warnings are required in post titles where applicable. Example: [CW: Injury]
- Use your best judgement and mark NSFW posts as such.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My mistake, it wasn't Harvard, it was Phillip Cook using the NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey) Data. It's only been 8yr since I read the article, please forgive my indiscretions. In my defense Harvard is also mentioned.
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defense
Needless to say I disagree with the disqualification of defensive display categorically, but understand why it would be done for official estimates (though that would mean the official would be purposefully low, by the nature if many of them not having police reports or being one's word against another even if they exist there's no real reliable way to collect those statistics, so I think it's best to leave them out.) Mostly I think it should just be kept in mind that the official estimate is based off of incomplete data and is low, lest we end up with ridiculous estimates like 3,000,000.
And yet still, ~~Harvard~~ the NCVS data* (whoops lol) estimates defensive gun use as 40k higher than gun deaths, and that's with less than 20% of Americans carrying daily. To say it's so rare it's a myth is to say all gun death (60k), gun homicide (12k), accidental gun injuries (~1,500) and deaths (~500), are also myths due to rarity. And also the OG Black Lotus card at 1,100 printed.
Is still indeed not true, regardless of if I misremembered just who said that one detail from 8y ago.
Again, your unsourced bullshit is not an actual summation of verifiable data.
It's just right-wing talking points, dude, with the veneer of pseudoscience.
More guns = more people die from guns. It's not any more difficult than that.
I mean you can disagree with the accredited crime researcher and the NCVS data he used (it is a move I guess) all you want, but I've posted the source where I got my claims, so "unsourced" is verifiably false, it's right there.
More water = more people drown, it's not any more difficult than that, ban water.
You can keep posting right-wing jerkoff fantasy as much as you want. Doesn't change the fact that the guy got his science wrong.