Post a link. I'd like to read this.
No. It's been in every issue of the American Rifleman Magazine since time immemorial. Look it up yourself.
You challenged COMMON KNOWLEDGE.
If you get into existing Defensive Gun Use ("DGU") studies with a critical eye, you will quickly figure out that it all depends on what you consider to be a DGU. The figures vary wildly depending on that and, of course, the pro or anti politics of the source. At the high end (from pro-gun sources), it looks like the figure in question here is about 90%.El oh el
I LOVE it when people make up statistics to argue against my point. 99%+huh? Erroneous. Straight bull-ogney. Cite your source please.
That would be the NRA.
If you get into existing Defensive Gun Use ("DGU") studies with a critical eye, you will quickly figure out that it all depends on what you consider to be a DGU. The figures vary wildly depending on that and, of course, the pro or anti politics of the source. At the high end (from pro-gun sources), it looks like the figure in question here is about 90%.
At the low end (from the anti-gun folks), DGU practically doesn't even exist.
Defensive gun use - Wikipedia
The Wikipedia mention was strictly for reference to the various studies that have been done. You are right: Never believe anything you read on Wikipedia without also checking the source material.Wikipedia is not a reliable source unfortunately, as anyone can edit the information there at any time. I will concede that while unreliable as a source, it is often still accurate.
The accurate and unbiased information I've been able to find is an independent study done by Claude Werner; a very well known firearm enthusiast, shooter, trainer, and writer. The study is dated, but it's not like less people are defending themselves today, and gun ownership has gone up wildly since then. In his study, SHOTS WERE FIRED in a WHOPPING 72% of incidents.
Here is that article...
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters (With Data Tables) | Guns Save Lives
Your killing me John! Everyone has different taste, but there's something about that gun that clicks with me. Everyone needs a goal, and you just gave me one...finding one of those.
I collect Colts and bought a 1908 Hammerless .25 Vest Pocket dated to 1915. I took it home and cleaned it. We took it to the range and I shot it at a ten yard target. I put six on the target with two in the black and thought I did good with the groove for sights. My wife shot it and put six on target with four in the black. She said, "This is my gun now."
They are good for very deep concealment and contact distances. When I get up in the morning, I drop an NAA Mini-22m in my pajama pocket until I get dressed. My wife will drop the Colt .25 in her pocket until she gets dressed. We have several other handguns, rifles, and shotguns available around the home.
“Is that an NAA pistol in your pajama pocket, or are you just not very happy to see me?” Sorry, couldn’t resist.....
I collect Colts and bought a 1908 Hammerless .25 Vest Pocket dated to 1915. I took it home and cleaned it. We took it to the range and I shot it at a ten yard target. I put six on the target with two in the black and thought I did good with the groove for sights. My wife shot it and put six on target with four in the black. She said, "This is my gun now."
“Is that an NAA pistol in your pajama pocket, or are you happy to see me?” Sorry, couldn’t resist.....
Those little boogers will shoot. Mine is the FN version of yours, but the same gun. I tried it out at only 7 yards and didn't expect much given those sights, but it did fine.
![]()
I rolled it on down to the 20 yard line, and they all stayed on silhouette.