re: Harvard: guns were used for self defense in less than 1% of crimes

Two things, how did they arrive at that percentage? Dividing the number of times used versus the number of guns? Well no shite. I hope I never have to use a gun in self-defense but that doesn't mean I don't carry all the time.

Second:

quote:

---

I do think that gun ownership should have required training.

---

Do you think other rights should require proper training in their use? Who should do such training?

I see a lot more damaging speech than I do exercise of 2nd amendment rights.
LINK

LINK

LINK

Just three quick examples. Of those three which in your learned opinion should have been a victim instead of defending themselves since it doesn't happen very often?

Also, what is the percentage of times it has been proven seat belts saved a life while driving? Probably less than gun stop crimes. Perhaps we should stop wearing seat belts because most of the times they are not used.

As some have noted, your stats don't reflect how many crimes didn't happen due to lawfully owned guns. I'm not just talking about the thwarting of criminals by those brandishing a gun to stop the crime but all over the landscape, especially in rural areas where most everyone owns a gun and potential criminals don't even entertain perpetrating crime due to their knowledge that a gun in the hands of a homeowner or good guy is nigh should they attempt to screw around. Then as others have said , when it comes to Constitutional rights it really doesn't matter in the first place so what I'm saying on a nutshell is Harvard can take that ivory tower biased survey and shove it.