Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Yes, while target shooting and hunting. But when I was (conscripted) in the army I made it a point to never to fire a gun, not even at a target, because if I had to shoot a person I would rather kill myself rather then having to live with the knowledge I killed another human being.
He lives for the people who still answer him back. Just ignore him like the rest of us do, and never respond to him. Also, set your spam filter to dispose of his emails without ever hitting your in box.
Yep. I thought it was way too loud ... not something I'd want to fire again and again just for fun. In fact, even if I used it for self-defense I think I would not care to fire it more than 3x in a row, especially if I was hitting the target. ;)
For home defense, a short shotgun is best. Just the sound of chambering the round is mega-scary.
There's really not much need for hand guns. As has been pointed out in the past, they really have only one purpose--killing people. And it takes a LOT of training to remain cool enough to hit your target when your adrenaline is pumping.
Sawing off the barrel of a shotgun does increast the portability but it also causes the gun to shoot a wider pattern. The wider pattern of shot increases your chances of hitting your target. At longer ranges it decreases your killing power but inside a house it would be VERY deadly. You probably would not even need to "aim" the gun. Just point in the general direction and pull the trigger. If you were scared and shaking and all that it would be more effective than a single bullet fired wildly from a rifle or a handgun.
[1 point]2 years ago by jondoughReplyEdited 2 years ago by jondough
That's a very common misconception. A shotgun, sawed off or not, at close ranges like you have in a house does not make a wide pattern. At the length of a hall you are going to get a pattern about the size of your fist. In a room (typically < 10 feet) you are going to get one big hole barley bigger than the gauge of your shotgun. (Don't believe it, go shot a target at 10 feet and see how big the spread is.) They still must be aimed just as accurately as a handgun. Sawing off the barrel will make the spread a little wider, but only a little and only at distance. Also don't cut it less than 18" unless you like doing time in prison. (I'd make it 18" and some change so the ATF can't argue your measurement was wrong and you are 1/32" too short.)
Shot guns take many yards (~25+) to start to spread in to a bigger pattern like people expect from a shotgun.
Another problem with a shotgun (in doors) is that they over penetrate. The buck shot is going to go right through the wall and keep on going probably through another two walls easily. So you have a greater chance of accidentally hitting someone else.
Lastly I don't know why people keep saying that handgun have one purpose, of killing people. This is clearly wrong and false. You can hunt with them; that is legal in many locations. You can target shoot with them; that is very common. You can carry them for self defense and use them to protect yourself.
If they have only one really purpose, why do we give them to our police? Do we think our police have only one real purpose, to kill people? If they have only one purpose, how is it that hundreds of millions of handgun rounds are shot every year without millions of people being killed by these handgun rounds?
Please stop making a fool of yourself by saying that handguns only have one real purpose of killing people.
[2 points]2 years ago by dr1024ReplyEdited 2 years ago by dr1024
I hate to say this but where I live when the newspaper reports police shot someone it almost always goes on to say they killed the person. Of course it could be possible I reckon that police fire their weapons a lot more often than the newspaper reports. If so, we never get those statistics.
There is a big difference between the way the police use their guns and what their job is, and the way citizens use guns for self defense.
All I care about is stopping someone from attacking or hurting me or my family. If they see my gun and run away without me firing a shoot, the gun did its job, and I'm happy to call the police and let them get away.
The police on the other hand are there to apprehend. It isn't enough that some attacker or robber gives up and tries to run away, the police are going to give pursuit and forcefully try to catch them. So the criminal only has two choices surrender and be arrested, or try to resist and escape. They are much more likely to be shot doing the latter.
Lastly going on newspaper reports isn't very realistic. News outlets are driven by what's a good story. It is a better story when someone gets killed, than when someone is simply wounded or arrested without incident. Similar you virtually never hear about the millions of times people use guns to defend themselves. There is no real story in, "someone tried to break into my house, so I got my gun and they ran away."
[2 points]2 years ago by dr1024ReplyEdited 2 years ago by dr1024
Good points... of course there's a great story in, "Someone tried to break into my house and I thought they were armed so I blew their brains out." I read a story about an eleven year old girl doing that to two escaped murderers who broke into her house when she was home alone. Whether or not it was true didn't matter at all, it was just great to read about how an eleven year old saved society long complicated trials and the expense of paying for these men's death row appeals or the cost of maintaining them for decades at taxpayer expense... money which would be much better spent paying for a public option in the new health reform proposals.
'Of course there's a great story in, "Someone tried to break into my house and I thought they were armed so I blew their brains out."' -- You would think so, and there is a story there, but not much of one. At least from many news outlets perspective.
A few months ago a lifelong criminal, high on drugs, walked in to a convenience store to rob it. The entire incident was caught on camera. The criminal told the clerk to give him the money and then immediately shot him twice without giving him a chance to give him the money. The criminal then turned his gun on the customers in the store, most of whom were on the ground. Luckily one of the people standing in line in the store had a CHP and his gun. As the criminal pointed his gun at the head of another customer on the ground the CHP holder shot him. The police credit the CHP holder with most likely saving the lives of everyone in the store that day. It made a small story in most papers that was mostly about the clerk being shoot, and the criminal having a long history and being high, and oh by the way someone with a gun saved everyone's lives.
Another example, The Appalachian School of Law shooting. Similar to the Virginia Tech shooting, a student decided to go on a shooting spree. The difference here is that when the shooting started two other students ran to their cars and retrieved their guns. They came back and told the shooter to stop a gun point. He did, he dropped his gun, and they tackled him. This was all accurately reported on the web site of a local paper... at first. Within hours the story had been edited to remove all mention of the two students going to get their own guns, and it was made to sound like they simple tackled him and wrestled the gun away.
News outlets definitely are selective in that they tell. Some of it is reasonable. You only have so many pages in a paper to tell all your stories, you only have so much time during a news broadcast to tell your stories. So you have to pick and choose. But they also have their own biases that influence what they tell. And in the case of the Appalachian School of Law story, the paper is known to have a long history of being anti-gun. I can just bet the publisher or some editor saw the first version of the story and said more or less, we have to change this because it doesn't fit with our anti-gun (guns are only evil) campaign.
[2 points]2 years ago by dr1024ReplyEdited 2 years ago by dr1024
I hadn't heard the Appalachian School of Law story but the way you describe it it sounds totally believable and I agree, ..the way it was covered sucks big. I'd like to see how that wimpy newspaper editor would have covered the story if either he or his own son had been shot at by the bad guy. It's too bad people like the editor aren't victimized more often. Maybe they'd change their tune.
It is legal to shorten (saw off) a shotgun so long as the barrel is at least 18" long. And they are very picky about that 18 inches. Miss judge just a fraction of an inch too short, and if caught in possession of that gun you will be changed with a felony. So if you are going to shorten a shotgun, I wouldn't go less than 18.25 or even 18.5" inches.
Rifles can be as short as 16".
(All these are US federal laws. Your local laws may be more strict.)
A 22 is what you want for fun target shooting or plinking. Relatively quiet, virtually no kick/recoil, and very cheap to buy ammo.
As for in a self-defense situation, by all reported accounts from hundreds of police officer and civilians who have had to do it, your adrenalin is so high you don't even notice.
Recently there was a gentleman fishing in Alaska. He was ambushed and charged by a large brown bear from less than 20 yards away. He shot the bear 4 time with 454 Casull and the bear hit the ground and skidded past where he was standing. The 454 Casull is a very large powerful handgun that most find uncomfortable for a single shot, and makes the 357 mag look like a BB gun. In interviews he doesn't even remember feeling or hearing the gun go off.
[1 point]2 years ago by dr1024ReplyEdited 2 years ago by dr1024
Agreed. It is impossible to make guns child safe, but it is relatively easy to make kids gun safe.
We teach our kids how to be safe with electricity, tools, crossing the street, around strangers, etc. But for some reason many think it is best to keep them ignorant of guns and gun safety. Like some think not teaching kids about sex will keep them safe from getting pregnant and STDs.
The best thing my father did for us was to not hide his guns but expose us to them at whatever rate we wanted. Some of us (like me) loved shooting them, others like my brothers and sisters... loved them too. But if any of us would have not like them (which my brother didn't until he was older) they were not pushed on them. But by knowing about them, what they could do, how to handle them safely, and knowing he would take us shooting most any time we wanted, the temptation and mystery of the guns was removed. Like smoking, drinking, and drugs, it is the unknown illicit nature of it that initially attracts most kids.
[1 point]2 years ago by dr1024ReplyEdited 2 years ago by dr1024
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Your reference article didn't offer much evidence. It seemed like a lot of the information was cherryn picked from a few isolated surveys in different parts of the world. The one that referenced Iraq didn't seem credible at all.
I doubt it. I think he knows how important they are for self-defense. He may not have a permit to carry a concealed weapon but I bet his bodyguards do. To allow his bodyguards to carry guns and not allow all bodyguards and others interested in self-defense to carry them would be hypocritical, and I don't think he's a hypocrite, do you? ;)
[1 point]2 years ago by ChipmonkReplyEdited 2 years ago by Chipmonk
On this issue he definite is. He is on the record as having said he doesn't believe people should be able to get carry permits. He has backed Chicago's gun ban. And on the white house web site he says he want's to ban semi-automatic rifles. All the while he is surrounded by bodyguards with fully automatic weapons.
Well, that is plain wrong. If he doesn't think people should be allowed to protect themselves with firearms he shouldn't be allowed to have firearm protection either. I'd like to hear from any Obama supporter who disagrees with me.
Yet, while I am for health reform I am not for gun control of guns used by people to obtain food or for self-defense. I do, however, believe people who own guns and who do not keep them out of a minor's reach should be as liable for "accidental" deaths or injuries as they would be if they had intentionally aimed and fired the guns themselves. There is no excuse for accidents caused in the homes of people who claim guns are safe in responsible hands.
[1 point]2 years ago by ChipmonkReplyEdited 2 years ago by Chipmonk
Agreed, mostly. I can't go as far as saying "people who own guns and who do not keep them out of a minor's reach should be as liable for "accidental" deaths or injuries as they would be if they had intentionally aimed and fired the guns themselves." "intentionally aimed and fired the guns themselves" would mean a charge of first degree murder or attempted murder and that's not what happened.
Not sure what prompted this question, but in 1999 (the most recent year I could find data for) there was 824 accidental deaths, and 8,259 gun murders in the US.
Though it didn't say, I'd bet most of those accidental deaths where hunting related.
My problem with your original statement is that what they where is negligent in letting unsupervised kids gain access to the firearms, but that is not the same as intentionally aiming and firing a gun yourself which would by criminal murder. It also doesn't address the potential for acts caused by a willful child. Short of have all guns in a commercial grade safe, there is little you could do to keep them from 16 year old intent on get them without permission. (Even then, I’m not sure a safe would work if the 16 year old was sufficiently motivated.)
[1 point]2 years ago by dr1024ReplyEdited 2 years ago by dr1024
Impossible to do; like proving a negative. Since someone was NOT killed, it is impossible to say they WOULD have been kill otherwise. Also many if not most that don’t involve a gun being fired are not reported and even if they were would not be counted in any police/government statistics.
The best you can do is estimate how many times guns are used in self-defense. Several studies, by both pro-gun and anti-gun groups/individuals, have been done to try to answer this question. The lowest number that I know of estimated that guns where used over 100,000/year in self-defense. The most widely excepted number I know is from a Kleck/Gertz study which found that guns where used in self-defense 2.1 to 2.5 million times per year. The highest number I know of is from Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig (anti-gun) who tried to do their own study after Kleck/Gertz because they thought the number was too high. Ironically Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig's study came up with a slightly higher number of 3 Million/year.
[1 point]2 years ago by dr1024ReplyEdited 2 years ago by dr1024
United States
only a dart gun
yes several.
Yes, while target shooting and hunting. But when I was (conscripted) in the army I made it a point to never to fire a gun, not even at a target, because if I had to shoot a person I would rather kill myself rather then having to live with the knowledge I killed another human being.
You must have made a poor conscript?
Even more so then regular conscripts...
This comment was deleted.
[-9 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyGeez, one innocent little comment and you throw a bus at me
He is a sack of poo. Ignore him.
He lives for the people who still answer him back. Just ignore him like the rest of us do, and never respond to him. Also, set your spam filter to dispose of his emails without ever hitting your in box.
Yes in target shooting once, and I was even quite good for a first timer. :-)
Does that make me sound "trigger-happy"? LOL
This comment was deleted.
[-9 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-8 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-7 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyVarsity rifle team the entire time I was in high school.
Yes, a .357 magnum pistol. It did not do a thing for me, nor did it make me want one.
This comment was deleted.
[-7 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyYep. I thought it was way too loud ... not something I'd want to fire again and again just for fun. In fact, even if I used it for self-defense I think I would not care to fire it more than 3x in a row, especially if I was hitting the target. ;)
For home defense, a short shotgun is best. Just the sound of chambering the round is mega-scary.
There's really not much need for hand guns. As has been pointed out in the past, they really have only one purpose--killing people. And it takes a LOT of training to remain cool enough to hit your target when your adrenaline is pumping.
A "short" shotgun? You mean like a "sawed-off" shotgun?
I always thought portability was the reason for sawing, I had no idea it increased the gun's effectiveness.
Sawing off the barrel of a shotgun does increast the portability but it also causes the gun to shoot a wider pattern. The wider pattern of shot increases your chances of hitting your target. At longer ranges it decreases your killing power but inside a house it would be VERY deadly. You probably would not even need to "aim" the gun. Just point in the general direction and pull the trigger. If you were scared and shaking and all that it would be more effective than a single bullet fired wildly from a rifle or a handgun.
Exactly.
That's a very common misconception. A shotgun, sawed off or not, at close ranges like you have in a house does not make a wide pattern. At the length of a hall you are going to get a pattern about the size of your fist. In a room (typically < 10 feet) you are going to get one big hole barley bigger than the gauge of your shotgun. (Don't believe it, go shot a target at 10 feet and see how big the spread is.) They still must be aimed just as accurately as a handgun. Sawing off the barrel will make the spread a little wider, but only a little and only at distance. Also don't cut it less than 18" unless you like doing time in prison. (I'd make it 18" and some change so the ATF can't argue your measurement was wrong and you are 1/32" too short.)
Shot guns take many yards (~25+) to start to spread in to a bigger pattern like people expect from a shotgun.
Another problem with a shotgun (in doors) is that they over penetrate. The buck shot is going to go right through the wall and keep on going probably through another two walls easily. So you have a greater chance of accidentally hitting someone else.
Lastly I don't know why people keep saying that handgun have one purpose, of killing people. This is clearly wrong and false. You can hunt with them; that is legal in many locations. You can target shoot with them; that is very common. You can carry them for self defense and use them to protect yourself.
If they have only one really purpose, why do we give them to our police? Do we think our police have only one real purpose, to kill people? If they have only one purpose, how is it that hundreds of millions of handgun rounds are shot every year without millions of people being killed by these handgun rounds?
Please stop making a fool of yourself by saying that handguns only have one real purpose of killing people.
This comment was deleted.
[-8 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyI hate to say this but where I live when the newspaper reports police shot someone it almost always goes on to say they killed the person. Of course it could be possible I reckon that police fire their weapons a lot more often than the newspaper reports. If so, we never get those statistics.
There is a big difference between the way the police use their guns and what their job is, and the way citizens use guns for self defense.
All I care about is stopping someone from attacking or hurting me or my family. If they see my gun and run away without me firing a shoot, the gun did its job, and I'm happy to call the police and let them get away.
The police on the other hand are there to apprehend. It isn't enough that some attacker or robber gives up and tries to run away, the police are going to give pursuit and forcefully try to catch them. So the criminal only has two choices surrender and be arrested, or try to resist and escape. They are much more likely to be shot doing the latter.
Lastly going on newspaper reports isn't very realistic. News outlets are driven by what's a good story. It is a better story when someone gets killed, than when someone is simply wounded or arrested without incident. Similar you virtually never hear about the millions of times people use guns to defend themselves. There is no real story in, "someone tried to break into my house, so I got my gun and they ran away."
Good points... of course there's a great story in, "Someone tried to break into my house and I thought they were armed so I blew their brains out." I read a story about an eleven year old girl doing that to two escaped murderers who broke into her house when she was home alone. Whether or not it was true didn't matter at all, it was just great to read about how an eleven year old saved society long complicated trials and the expense of paying for these men's death row appeals or the cost of maintaining them for decades at taxpayer expense... money which would be much better spent paying for a public option in the new health reform proposals.
'Of course there's a great story in, "Someone tried to break into my house and I thought they were armed so I blew their brains out."' -- You would think so, and there is a story there, but not much of one. At least from many news outlets perspective.
A few months ago a lifelong criminal, high on drugs, walked in to a convenience store to rob it. The entire incident was caught on camera. The criminal told the clerk to give him the money and then immediately shot him twice without giving him a chance to give him the money. The criminal then turned his gun on the customers in the store, most of whom were on the ground. Luckily one of the people standing in line in the store had a CHP and his gun. As the criminal pointed his gun at the head of another customer on the ground the CHP holder shot him. The police credit the CHP holder with most likely saving the lives of everyone in the store that day. It made a small story in most papers that was mostly about the clerk being shoot, and the criminal having a long history and being high, and oh by the way someone with a gun saved everyone's lives.
Another example, The Appalachian School of Law shooting. Similar to the Virginia Tech shooting, a student decided to go on a shooting spree. The difference here is that when the shooting started two other students ran to their cars and retrieved their guns. They came back and told the shooter to stop a gun point. He did, he dropped his gun, and they tackled him. This was all accurately reported on the web site of a local paper... at first. Within hours the story had been edited to remove all mention of the two students going to get their own guns, and it was made to sound like they simple tackled him and wrestled the gun away.
News outlets definitely are selective in that they tell. Some of it is reasonable. You only have so many pages in a paper to tell all your stories, you only have so much time during a news broadcast to tell your stories. So you have to pick and choose. But they also have their own biases that influence what they tell. And in the case of the Appalachian School of Law story, the paper is known to have a long history of being anti-gun. I can just bet the publisher or some editor saw the first version of the story and said more or less, we have to change this because it doesn't fit with our anti-gun (guns are only evil) campaign.
I hadn't heard the Appalachian School of Law story but the way you describe it it sounds totally believable and I agree, ..the way it was covered sucks big. I'd like to see how that wimpy newspaper editor would have covered the story if either he or his own son had been shot at by the bad guy. It's too bad people like the editor aren't victimized more often. Maybe they'd change their tune.
I heard sawing the barrel off one is illegal. Is that really true or just an urban legend with no bearing in fact?
It is legal to shorten (saw off) a shotgun so long as the barrel is at least 18" long. And they are very picky about that 18 inches. Miss judge just a fraction of an inch too short, and if caught in possession of that gun you will be changed with a felony. So if you are going to shorten a shotgun, I wouldn't go less than 18.25 or even 18.5" inches.
Rifles can be as short as 16".
(All these are US federal laws. Your local laws may be more strict.)
This comment was deleted.
[-7 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyA 22 is what you want for fun target shooting or plinking. Relatively quiet, virtually no kick/recoil, and very cheap to buy ammo.
As for in a self-defense situation, by all reported accounts from hundreds of police officer and civilians who have had to do it, your adrenalin is so high you don't even notice.
Recently there was a gentleman fishing in Alaska. He was ambushed and charged by a large brown bear from less than 20 yards away. He shot the bear 4 time with 454 Casull and the bear hit the ground and skidded past where he was standing. The 454 Casull is a very large powerful handgun that most find uncomfortable for a single shot, and makes the 357 mag look like a BB gun. In interviews he doesn't even remember feeling or hearing the gun go off.
This comment was deleted.
[-8 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyI didn't like the .357 either. Like smaller guns though, and rifles.
I've been shooting since I was 5 years old. Rifles, shotguns, and handguns of all types.
This comment was deleted.
[-8 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyAgreed. It is impossible to make guns child safe, but it is relatively easy to make kids gun safe.
We teach our kids how to be safe with electricity, tools, crossing the street, around strangers, etc. But for some reason many think it is best to keep them ignorant of guns and gun safety. Like some think not teaching kids about sex will keep them safe from getting pregnant and STDs.
The best thing my father did for us was to not hide his guns but expose us to them at whatever rate we wanted. Some of us (like me) loved shooting them, others like my brothers and sisters... loved them too. But if any of us would have not like them (which my brother didn't until he was older) they were not pushed on them. But by knowing about them, what they could do, how to handle them safely, and knowing he would take us shooting most any time we wanted, the temptation and mystery of the guns was removed. Like smoking, drinking, and drugs, it is the unknown illicit nature of it that initially attracts most kids.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyIt was in some schools in the US. Though that is very rare today except in Alaska.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-6 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-7 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-7 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Your reference article didn't offer much evidence. It seemed like a lot of the information was cherryn picked from a few isolated surveys in different parts of the world. The one that referenced Iraq didn't seem credible at all.
This comment was deleted.
[-6 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyHe would like to.
I doubt it. I think he knows how important they are for self-defense. He may not have a permit to carry a concealed weapon but I bet his bodyguards do. To allow his bodyguards to carry guns and not allow all bodyguards and others interested in self-defense to carry them would be hypocritical, and I don't think he's a hypocrite, do you? ;)
This comment was deleted.
[-5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyOn this issue he definite is. He is on the record as having said he doesn't believe people should be able to get carry permits. He has backed Chicago's gun ban. And on the white house web site he says he want's to ban semi-automatic rifles. All the while he is surrounded by bodyguards with fully automatic weapons.
Well, that is plain wrong. If he doesn't think people should be allowed to protect themselves with firearms he shouldn't be allowed to have firearm protection either. I'd like to hear from any Obama supporter who disagrees with me.
Yet, while I am for health reform I am not for gun control of guns used by people to obtain food or for self-defense. I do, however, believe people who own guns and who do not keep them out of a minor's reach should be as liable for "accidental" deaths or injuries as they would be if they had intentionally aimed and fired the guns themselves. There is no excuse for accidents caused in the homes of people who claim guns are safe in responsible hands.
Agreed, mostly. I can't go as far as saying "people who own guns and who do not keep them out of a minor's reach should be as liable for "accidental" deaths or injuries as they would be if they had intentionally aimed and fired the guns themselves." "intentionally aimed and fired the guns themselves" would mean a charge of first degree murder or attempted murder and that's not what happened.
I thought gun accidents were the main cause of gun deaths/injuries -- far more than intended homicides and homicide attempts. No?
Not sure what prompted this question, but in 1999 (the most recent year I could find data for) there was 824 accidental deaths, and 8,259 gun murders in the US.
Though it didn't say, I'd bet most of those accidental deaths where hunting related.
My problem with your original statement is that what they where is negligent in letting unsupervised kids gain access to the firearms, but that is not the same as intentionally aiming and firing a gun yourself which would by criminal murder. It also doesn't address the potential for acts caused by a willful child. Short of have all guns in a commercial grade safe, there is little you could do to keep them from 16 year old intent on get them without permission. (Even then, I’m not sure a safe would work if the 16 year old was sufficiently motivated.)
What would be most interesting would be statistics on how many lives guns have saved.
Impossible to do; like proving a negative. Since someone was NOT killed, it is impossible to say they WOULD have been kill otherwise. Also many if not most that don’t involve a gun being fired are not reported and even if they were would not be counted in any police/government statistics.
The best you can do is estimate how many times guns are used in self-defense. Several studies, by both pro-gun and anti-gun groups/individuals, have been done to try to answer this question. The lowest number that I know of estimated that guns where used over 100,000/year in self-defense. The most widely excepted number I know is from a Kleck/Gertz study which found that guns where used in self-defense 2.1 to 2.5 million times per year. The highest number I know of is from Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig (anti-gun) who tried to do their own study after Kleck/Gertz because they thought the number was too high. Ironically Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig's study came up with a slightly higher number of 3 Million/year.
Interesting stats. 'Makes me want to go out tomorrow morning and buy a handgun for everyone on my Christmas list. :-)