Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed

[alfredo]

My flame retardant suit is at the cleaners.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.

It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.

Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.

[grantcart]

1. Well what happens if you carry two guns?

[Cant trust em]

7. I roll around town with a bazooka.

I practically dare people to fuck with me.

[tired]

45. This is how i roll

[Cant trust em]

46. I can't see the image.

I sounds like it's going to be funny though.

[tired]

47. Not sure why its coming up on my machine just fine.

[VOX]

113. No image: "The image can't be displayed for the moment! Please go to www.gifbin.com to see it."

??? :shrug:

[cloudbase]

68. Hah!

A flamethrower will get you some real respect.

[damntexdem]

11. Then it would be easier for a perpetrator to find one and shoot you with it.

Alternately, easier for you to grab and shoot yourself in the heat of an attack.

[slackmaster]

25. I don't know, but I eat an apple every eight hours to keep three doctors away

:hi:

[Kaleva]

146. Then you earn the nick "Tommy Two-guns"

[cliffordu]

194. Will you carry a gun and protect ME, please??

My shotgun is getting heavy

[bvar22]

253. What happens if you carry two guns?

Obviously, you get killed twice as many times.

[hlthe2b]

2. Statistics will not phase the "true believers...."

Gungeon fans, let's not devour the OP for posting facts you disagree with, ok? (that's all, I can do, for ya, alfredo--beware of flames)

[paulsby]

6. pretty easy ro debunk their methodology

see link.

http://volokh.com/2009/10/05/guns-did-not-protect-those-who-possessed-them-from-being-shot-in-an-assault/#comments

[damntexdem]

16. No, it's not easy to "debunk" the methodology. The methodology is sound.

The issue is that the methodology cannot establish causation, only generate a strong hypothesis.

It was noted in the article that it would be unethical, as well as unfeasible, to use an approach that could establish causality: a randomized experiment where subjects were randomly assigned to a 'carry' experimental group or a 'non-carry' control group.

[TheWraith]

48. No, the methodology is NOT "sound."

They sampled people who were shot, found out that they were more likely to be carrying than the national average, then announce "Carrying a gun makes you get shot." That's a grade-A logical fallacy. Particularly when you consider they're not distinguishing between legal and illegal carriage.

If you analyzed shootings in, say, inner city Baltimore you'd find that they're disproportionately young black guys, but that's not a basis for claiming that being a young black man causes you to be shot. It's because those kids are the ones getting dragged into gangs and gang warfare.

Looking at only cases where someone has been shot is called adverse selection: they're choosing a pool of people who are by definition not representative of the national average.

[paulsby]

59. exactly. it's like the analogy made

in the article i referenced.

people with pacemakers are more likely to have heart attacks. pacemakers do not CAUSE heart attacks

[Joe Fields]

102. Good god, man, how else would you conduct this research?

Analyze people who DIDN'T GET SHOT?

Of course it isn't a perfect study. Maybe you could explain to me how you could do a perfect scientific study on this issue?

Whether you want to admit it, or not,this study speaks volumes.

That is, unless you are a gun nut, who can justify anything.

[TxRider]

138. In a manner that actually represents reality.

As the head of the study himself says...

"We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous,"... "This study is a beginning."

Kinda shoots a big hole in what the articles headline raves about doesn't it?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

153. So you think police officers would be safer if they didn't carry guns?

[provis99]

181. British police who don't carry guns are much less likely to be shot than American cops.

You dope.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

187. Then the cops in the US should be safer without them right? Is that your assertion?

[Euromutt]

225. Why conduct it at all?

The study itself acknowledges that the researchers "did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault." That reduces the entire study to what Dr. Harriet Hall has termed "tooth fairy science":

You could measure how much money the Tooth Fairy leaves under the pillow, whether she leaves more cash for the first or last tooth, whether the payoff is greater if you leave the tooth in a plastic baggie versus wrapped in Kleenex. You can get all kinds of good data that is reproducible and statistically significant. Yes, you have learned something. But you haven’t learned what you think you’ve learned, because you haven’t bothered to establish whether the Tooth Fairy really exists.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=44

Certainly, one area where there's room for immediate improvement is where you don't write stuff in your conclusions that isn't actually supported by your data.

[Euromutt]

276. Addendum: test the Branas study's findings' predictive ability

I'm particularly fond of an observation made by Ted Goertzel of Rutgers regarding econometric modeling (which the Branas study is):

When presented with an econometric model, consumers should insist on evidence that it can predict trends in data other than the data used to create it. Models that fail this test are junk science, no matter how complex the analysis.

http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm

So the way to test the validity of Branas' team's findings is to run similar comparisons in other cities, and see if the results are the same, or at least very similar, every time. Preferably, someone else than Branas cum suis should do it, and ideally, it should be done by criminologists rather than public health researchers. That still doesn't establish which way the causal relationship, if any, runs, but it would go a long way to indicating that the association perceived by Branas et al. isn't just a one-off.

[forward assist]

266. true study

the only way to get an accurate conclusion is to do a long term study and legally asign people to carry guns, and also have a control group who do not carry guns and monitor and report. There are also much more variables that could be taken into account. History of associates, location and many other things. Here is one for you liberals. If all guns are banned then the majority of shooting victems will be without a firearm!! Then what? Crime will not go down if firearms are illegal. It will do the opposite. Case in point, who do you think is more likely to be held at gun point, a grocery store with a no-guns sticker on the door or a gun store?

[Bill McBlueState]

105. you put a certain phrase in quotation marks

This indicates that you quoted the authors verbatim. On what page of the study does that phrase appear?

[Euromutt]

261. Towards the end

I haven't shelled out $30(!) for the article; but I got that quote from someone who did.

[Euromutt]

239. The hell it is

From the study itself:

However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking (Table 1).

You practically couldn't come up with a demographic that is less likely to have land line telephones. And how do they generate a control group:

To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting.

Since it's illegal to make unsolicited calls to a cell phone, that means they were phoning land lines.

Which means right there that your study group and your control group are going to consist of very different types of people, which introduces a whole bunch of variables aside from the one you're interested in (i.e. carrying a firearm). Good luck controlling for them all.

Another problem is getting your controls to tell the truth. Personally, if some random stranger called me and asked "did you have a handgun on or about your person twenty-five minutes ago?" I wouldn't tell them that I had, even if I had been doing so legally. A study titled "Validity of a household gun question in a telephone survey" (Rafferty et al., Public Health Reports. May-June 1995 v110 n3) found that 10.3% of respondent known to have a hunting license and 12.7% of respondents known to have a registered handgun denied owning a firearm. That's going to skew your ratios a bit.

[hlthe2b]

19. I agree there are limitations... all the more reason to conduct

much larger studies that control for these factors...When CDC proposed such studies a decade and a half ago, they were shut down immediately. I think we ought to know the true impact of gun ownership--good or bad.

[paulsby]

27. i think that's a good thing

my point is that this study doesn't even come close to establishing causation.

study is ALWAYS good, even if it leads to answers i don't like or answers that i love.

[Joe Fields]

57. only if you are a gun nut. then you may justify anything.

[Blu_Statr]

268. Your statement is true regardless of your conviction...

I've been studying this gun rights vs gun crime issue for over 20 years as an avocation.

I see a lot of "true believers on both sides. If you look hard enough, you can find a study or a statistic to say (or at least infer) whatever you want.

FWIW, I've been able to debunk more pro-control statements than pro-gun statements, and the preponderance of verifiable facts support responsible gun ownership and use. I'll have to try and find the study that came out ~20 years ago stating that a victim of violent crime who fights back is at much greater risk of death or injury _UNLESS_ they use a gun; then their risk falls below that of victims who don't resist/cooperate.

[slackmaster]

3. Another lame attempt to apply a dubious proxy measure to prove causation from correlation

Maybe people whose life situations make them more likely to become crime victims are more likely to carry guns for protection.

Nobody has ever claimed that a gun guarantees safety. The best way to stay safe is always to stay away from trouble.

The Astute Reader(TM) will note that the following two statements actually mean very different things:

"Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed"

"People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed"

The first implies causation. The second does not.

[damntexdem]

21. Neither lame nor using a 'dubious proxy measure.' It's perfectly sound public health research.

Yes, it can only support your second statement. Such correlation, especially in a case-control study such as this one, can suggest causation, not support a hypothesis of causation.

[slackmaster]

23. I'll settle for "Poorly written headline in the media report"

A failure of journalism.

[X_Digger]

234. Valid for public health research.. for disease..

.. when bacteria get sentient and choose victims, that's social science, not epidemiology.

[Joe Fields]

58. WTF?

the two statements are the same. but you can choose to read into them what you will. Gun nuts have a way of justifying anything.

[armyowalgreens]

63. They aren't the same.

As stated, they imply different causation.

Calling us gun nuts isn't going to make you look any smarter or correct. It only makes you look like you're grasping at straws.

[Joe Fields]

82. B.S. Now you sound like Clinton, when he tried to explain what "is" is.

And calling you gun nuts may not make me look any smarter, but by God, it IS accurate.

[armyowalgreens]

89. Sorry, semantics do matter in this case. Especially...

when people here are using this story as yet another excuse to bash gun owners.

"And calling you gun nuts may not make me look any smarter, but by God, it IS accurate."

Saying gun nut means that you are saying that we are crazy for or obsessed with guns. Which is a huge pile of steaming bullshit. I'm assuming you own a car. Does that make you a car nut?

Do you own a cell phone? If so, does that mean you are a phone nut?

No. Your imbecile attempts to smear responsible gun owners are only making you look like even more of a fool.

[Joe Fields]

93. tell someone else. talk about a steaming pile of crap.

I've never needed a gun in my life. I am not a cop, I don't carry a lot of money in my job, and, aside from a few other occupations that require the use of a gun, there is absolutely no need to possess a firearm in public. If you believe so, then you are a gun nut, and I take both pity and scorn on you.

[armyowalgreens]

97. "I've never needed a gun in my life."

Then don't carry a gun. No one is forcing you carry if you don't need it. And no one here is attempting to suggest that everyone should carry a gun at all times in all places.

But to suggest that others are crazy for carrying a gun is simply absurd. There are plenty of places on earth, and no doubt in this country, that I would rather not enter into without a firearm.

"If you believe so, then you are a gun nut"

If you believe that abortion is okay, you are a baby murderer.


See, I can make mindless statements too.

[Joe Fields]

109. I haven't carried a gun, and I won't. But don't try and feed me a bunch

of chickenshit excuses for carrying a weapon in public, if it isn't absolutely required by your employer.

The bottom line is that you are more than four times as likely to get shot, if you carry, than if you don't.

Want to keep carrying? Expect to get shot.

You'll feel real macho, then, now won't you, as you lie in a hospital room.

[armyowalgreens]

111. "The bottom line is that you are more than four times as likely to get shot"

That is a lie. You are perpetuating a falsehood.

"You'll feel real macho, then, now won't you, as you lie in a hospital room."

And the truth comes out. It always comes down to the mockery of ones masculinity.

I've met a lot more women that carry than men.

[GreenStormCloud]

214. Not true. The study does not include those defensive gun uses in which...

the criminal runs away and nobody gets shot. Since those kind of incounter make up about 99%+ of DGUs, then the study is worthless because it does not include those.

[Joe Fields]

242. Imagine...I've somehow managed to live 53 years, and have done so

without any firearm ownership.

What's "crazy" is feeling the need to carry in public, to feel like you MUST have it all the time.

Just my opinion. Like it or don't like it. I really care not what you think.

[slackmaster]

106. Do you believe that if you started carrying a concealed handgun that you would become more likely...

To be shot?

No other changes in your habits or behavior; the only change would be that you would be carrying a weapon.

Nobody but you would know that you are carrying it.

[Joe Fields]

110. Yes.

[slackmaster]

120. By what mechanism?

Distortion of space-time by the metal of the gun so that bullets curve toward you?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

158. Spoken like a "true believer".

[X_Digger]

236. The magic gun field attracts bullets?

And you call _us_ 'nuts'?

[Joe Fields]

243. I've found that nuances on hot button issues, such as this, are lost

many gun owners. I'll take a chance and say that you are one of those people.

I was asked a question. I answered it. I explained once, downthread why I feel that way. It is you who are sputtering about some "magic gun field" and you have the stupidity to call me nuts?

GFY

[tortoise1956]

248. That would be acceptable...

if it appeared that you had read the paper. Once again, this study used a non-random group of 677 individuals who are predominantly Hispanic and exhibited a tendency to use drugs and alcohol. In addition, the results were based on a sample size of 6% of the group, or 40-41 individuals. Finally, the control group was in no way comparable to the sample set.

I analyze data for a living, and I have to actually defend my results. If I tried to represent a similar comparison to my customers as having any validity, there is no doubt in my mind that my bosses would take me out behind the woodshed - and rightly so.

[X_Digger]

250. You answered 'yes' to this question:

Do you believe that if you started carrying a concealed handgun that you would become more likely...

To be shot?

No other changes in your habits or behavior; the only change would be that you would be carrying a weapon.

Nobody but you would know that you are carrying it.

No other changes in habits or behavior.. so you become a bullet magnet?

Please, explain your answering 'yes' to the above question without magic..

[Euromutt]

262. Do you have a problem understanding sarcasm?

Do you have a more reasonable explanation for your contention that, all other things being equal, carrying a firearm makes you more likely to be shot? By what mechanism would this occur? I notice you haven't actually attempted to answer that question.

In the absence of an answer on your part, other posters can only hypothesize what this mechanism might be. Given that your contention is rather implausible to begin with, I think they may be forgiven for being rather derisive.

[bvar22]

LOL.

Sir, you have been checkmated.

[Autonomy]

255. I believe that too

Carrying a gun, even if no one else knows you are carrying it, increases the chance of being shot.

1. You've introduced a new catergory of accidental or deliberate self-injury that simply did not exist previously.

2. Your behavior would change, subtly and unconsciously perhaps, but the knowledge that you are carrying a gun is a behavioral "attractor" (as in the chaos/complexity sense) of violence and danger. Moreover, a gun culture with many simultaneous attractors causes a violent culture, where murders and assaults are far above comparable non-gun cultures.

That there is a statistical attraction of violence caused by possession of a gun is not all that controversial, except among certain audiences. I would go further, however, and say that there is a subtle causation; that, in any given individual, carrying a gun causes an increased chance in that person being shot than if that person were not carrying.

[tortoise1956]

256. I respect your views..

But I disagree with them.

IMO, carrying a gun does not make you more likely to be shot, UNLESS you are spoiling for a fight. In that case, you deserve to be shot. However, in real life, there are literally millions of law-abiding individuals who carry firearms on a regular basis. If this made them more susceptible to being shot, don't you think that there would have been a whole host of studies that show that cause and effect? And that this would be shouted from the rooftops and reported in the MSM? The problem is that there is as of yet no valid study that has shown a linkage.

The real answer is that, unless you are in one of the areas that has banned firearms, you are probably encountering many people every day who carry firearms without incident. I sincerely hope that doesn't scare you...it's not meant to.

[Autonomy]

257. There are studies (like the one being discussed)

But they have severe limitations to their control and replicability, and have multitudes of confounds. Unfortunately, a standard statistical analysis of crime date will never clear this murky pond. I think one would need to study behavioral changes not directly related to violence, and extrapolate those findings to the statistics, not vice versa, as is usually done.

[tortoise1956]

258. Whoa!

I wouldn't know where to start in building a statistical analysis of behavioral changes, especially if they aren't directly related to the actual subject of the study. Soooo...I respectfully agree to disagree with your views on this subject.

In any event, thanks for providing a reasoned reply, without snide references. It's very refreshing...and a change of pace from what usually passes for debate on firearms-related threads!

Edited for really bad typing...

[Autonomy]

263. I don't atm know either

It might be very simple. It might be a very innocuous behavioral change, like the amount of time spent looking at a threatening picture when unarmed and when armed. Heart rate while looking at those pics unarmed and armed. Etc.

[GreenStormCloud]

265. You are combining two different classes of armed people.

Both law-abiding people and criminals carry concealed. The criminal group will have a much higher chance of being shot than the CCW people.

I legally carry, and I take extra steps to avoid crime areas and times. My gun is for the possibility that my attempts to avoid trouble fail.

[Autonomy]

267. I am speaking solely about law-abiding people

but I have serious doubts there are two distinct categories; that's for another discussion, though.

[Treo]

140. Why I need to posses a firearm in public

My daughter married into a family of drug dealers when she was 17, her husband spent half of their marriage in federal prison. While in prison he was suspected of involvement in 5 jailhouse murders. He is reputed to have been involved in more on the outside. He is back in prison now partially due to my wife’s testimony against him. He lost all parental rights in his divorce to my daughter; again my wife’s testimony was instrumental. He and his family have sworn vengeance. His family has stolen everything my daughter owns in retaliation and has threatened to kidnap her children and take them to Mexico. FWIW current federal law prohibits my ex SIL, as well as half his family, from possessing a firearm. the last time he got out of prison he had one before he made it all the way to his house.

I carry a gun everywhere I go, as does my wife. I am never unarmed.

Do I qualify as a “gun nut”

[pipoman]

233. Archie Bunker have you come over to the dark side? n/t

[slackmaster]

101. No, please allow me to explain why they are not the same

One says that carrying a gun actually changes the probability that you will be shot; that the same individual in one specific set of circumstances becomes more attractive to bullets simply by the act of carrying a (concealed) weapon.

The other says that people who carry guns are more likely to be shot than are people who do not. It allows for the possibility that people who are already more likely to be shot because of some other factor (e.g. living in a rough neighborhood) tend to carry guns more than people who are less likely to be shot.

I think that kind of thing is fundamentally difficult to measure. The probability of an ordinary citizen being shot is very, very small regardless of whether he or she is carrying a weapon, even in a rough neighborhood.

[Joe Fields]

116. One factor that isn't present, is the mindset of someone who carries a weapon.

There is a feeling of mastering your environment, invincibility, when carrying a weapon, as if you are in control. But the reality is that you are not in control of a situation. When a crime occurs, I don't recall anyone coming up to a victim, tapping them on the shoulder and saying, "Excuse me, but would you mind ever so much, if I robbed you today?"

No. What happens, nearly all of the time, is that the victim of a gun crime is caught off guard. They are caught completely by surprise, because the criminal wants all the edge they can get.

It is the mindset, that can get you killed.

You don't have that problem, so much, when you don't carry.


The biggest point, I feel, that needs to be made here, is that, if you are prudent and wary, you will know where you can go, and where you shouldn't go, and what times are safe. If you make good choices as to where you go and what times and who with, there will be no need to carry any weapons.

[RamboLiberal]

122. That's another big fallacy

That those who legally carry somehow feel invincible. I've trained in Martial Arts for 27 years and I've carried a firearm for about 15. I try to avoid situations where I might need either. And people I know who are like minded do the same. Many of us also pay more attention to what is going on around us - situational awareness.

The people who get attacked are often walking around oblivious.

[slackmaster]

125. One way cops catch muggers is to send out a decoy who acts drunk or lost

When the muggers strike, multiple big cops come in and make the tackle.

[slackmaster]

123. That's an interesting point but according to self-defense instructors it works the other way too

If you walk around with a heightened awareness of your surroundings, your demeanor changes in ways that make you less likely to become the victim of a crime.

One anecdote - My tax accountant used to carry large amounts of cash for a business he did the books for. The place was in National City, CA which is notorious for gang activity.

After he was robbed at gunpoint once, he took the course, filed the application, and got a permit to carry one of his guns concealed. The course taught him how to carry himself and how to spot potential attackers before they make a move.

He hasn't been attacked since he started carrying his weapon.

Your mileage may vary.

The biggest point, I feel, that needs to be made here, is that, if you are prudent and wary, you will know where you can go, and where you shouldn't go, and what times are safe.

Joe, I don't believe any reasonable person would disagree with that sentence. The problem is that sometimes people don't have complete control over where they must be and at what time of day.

[TxRider]

128. And you have evidence this mindset exists?

Citations please?

Have you ever carried a gun?

Would you have such feelings of mastery and invincibility if you did?

What makes you think any other rational person would?

[Joe Fields]

134. I don't argue with Texans...

"And you have evidence this mindset exists?"


Ha, Fucking Ha!!!!

[TxRider]

135. I thought not... A bigoted mindset too?

And not even an answer from your personal viewpoint on the questions.

No argument, just questions..

[armyowalgreens]

207. To say that you fail miserably is like saying that nuclear bombs make large explosions.

It's an understatement.

[caballero]

184. You have never carried a gun but you are an expert on the mindset of those who do?

How are you liking that Magic Eight Ball?

[PavePusher]

230. Holy Cow, who let you into my head!?

You are so right! When I carry a gun, I AM more powerful, I feel stronger, almost invincible. Nothing can harm me! I am so wrapped up in my feelings of invulnerability that I lose all situational awareness, become rude and boisterous, and strut like a knight of old. And look! My penis is bigger now, and pleases all woman-kind!

And without a gun I will always know when and were crime can happen, so I'll just avoid it!




Wow. And the grabbers acuse US of thinking of guns as magical talismans....

Enjoy your little fantasy land, my friend.

[Joe Fields]

245. damn, you're paranoid. I actually feel sorry for you.

[paulsby]

199. they are not logically the same

it's analytical reasoning. it's not arguable. the first statement references CAUSATION. the second does not

[X_Digger]

235. Go back to school.. not the same.

Does it really have to be explained to you? The two statements are similar, but NOT the same.

[atreides1]

4. One city

Get back to me when it's one major city in each of the 50 states and the U.S. territories.

[damntexdem]

26. This is a totally-ridiculous standard. That is not necessary for generalizability.

Yes, study should be:
1) replicated elsewhere; and
2) undertaken in a wider, more-representative array of places.
A national sample would be desirable; but an adequate sample need not include every state and territory.

However, the research in one city is adequate to establish the hypothesis that carrying a gun increases the risk of being shot. What should be carried out in a more-generalizable way are studies that could come closer to establishing causality.

Pointing out the weakness of the method is quite reasonable; but throwing everything at it and making ridiculous demands is not.

[paulsby]

5. good debunking of the methodology of this "study" here...

http://volokh.com/2009/10/05/guns-did-not-protect-those-who-possessed-them-from-being-shot-in-an-assault/#comments


Conspicuously missing from the press release and the news story were two critical limitations that were admitted in the original study. These qualifiers mean that the press release headline, as well as all the other statements and implications of causation, were quite mistaken. Perhaps defensive possession and carrying of guns helps protect the possessor and carrier, and perhaps it doesn’t. But the study sheds virtually no light on the subject.

1. To begin with, there’s the obvious causation/correlation problem. Maybe, as the authors speculate, carrying a gun increases your chances of being shot with a gun (as suggested by the framing of the issue as “whether guns are protective or perilous”), or at least fails to decrease them (”guns did not protect”). Or maybe a third source — perhaps some people’s being the targets of death threats, or being in a dangerous legal line of work, or being gang members or drug dealers — causes both higher gun carrying among those people and higher risk of being shot.

By way of analogy, we don’t suggest that pacemakers cause heart attacks, or don’t protect against heart attacks, just because we find a correlation between the presence of pacemaker and the incidence of heart attacks. Obviously, people might get pacemakers precisely because they’re at risk of heart attacks. Well, people might get guns precisely because they’re at risk of attack. (Stewart Baker makes a similar point.) One can try to control for this in some measure — but while the study controls for some relevant attributes (race, sex, age, neighborhood, having a “high-risk occupation,” and having at least one arrest on one’s record), it leaves a vast range of factors uncontrolled. You’d think that gang members are more likely than others to carry guns and to get shot, even controlling for the presence of an arrest record. (Lots of law-abiding people carry guns, but I expect that more gang members do.) But the study doesn’t control for that, or for many other things.

Let me illustrate this with a deliberately oversimplified model. Let’s begin by assuming a total population of 100,000, that’s divided into two groups, a 10% high-risk group and a 90% low-risk group. Let’s say that the high-risk group has a 60% risk of being attacked, and as a result 40% of its members carry guns. And let’s say that the low-risk group has a 5% risk of being attacked, and as a result 3% of its members carry guns. Let’s also imagine a total population of 100,000 (just to make the numbers easier), and let’s assume that possessing a gun has a modest protective effect for both groups — it reduces the risk of being injured when attacked from 75% to 60%.

Here’s what this turns out yielding, with “A” meaning “armed subgroup” and “U” meaning the unarmed subgroup.

(graphic table follows...)

The result: The armed subgroup has 3.5 the risk of injury compared to the unarmed subgroup, and the relative odds ratio between them is 4.29. And this is so even though in the model gun possession decreases the injury risk for both the high- and the low-risk group.

Naturally, this is just a model; the real numbers are likely very different from the ones I give here, and in fact no-one knows what the real numbers are. (The model also doesn’t precisely fit the numbers in the study, though I’m pretty sure one can make a similar model that would fit them more closely.) My point is that one just can’t infer from an odds ratio of over 4 to the judgment that “guns did not protect those who possessed them,” much less that they were actually “perilous” to the possessors. The high odds ratio is just as consistent with the model I describe as with a model where gun possession increases the risk of injury...

more follows...

[alfredo]

13. They say that the study is NOT the final word, just a beginning.

"We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous," Branas says. "This study is a beginning."

This is an important point:

Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.

[damntexdem]

29. Yes, the investigators were responsible in their reporting.

A case-control study generating a hypothesis is just a beginning, a quite-valuable beginning.

[alfredo]

35. There's a lot of irrational fear out there, and some believe carrying a gun

will ease that fear.

[rucky]

8. Maybe more people are packing in the higher-crime areas?

[alfredo]

18. The CC people I know live in suburban and rural neighborhoods, not the

inner city. They come across like paranoid right wing racists. I think they carry because they are afraid of Hispanics and African Americans. They seem to give them supernatural powers over whites.

[Mojorabbit]

36. The one I know the best

is my husband who is a liberal family physician and not afraid of Hispanics nor African Americans but we do live in a city with a high homicide rate. Shrug. It is easy to make broad brush generalizations but I am guessing a broad spectrum of people CC for a myriad of reasons.

[damntexdem]

30. Good generation of a counter hypothesis.

A study could be designed to try to account for that.

[TxRider]

139. Yes it could

But limiting your study to people who have been shot is not the way, in fact it's quite opposite.

The study really says nothing more than that out of a fairly small number of gunshot victims in a metro area more than the average carried guns. I would expect that in these days of gang violence and drive by shootings, and other artifacts of poverty and our war on drugs.

[X_Digger]

238. Nail on the head..

.. no factoring for crime rate, general likelihood to be a victim of crime, vulnerable group, etc..

[RamboLiberal]

9. This study is total BS

Yep, let's do it in a city suffering from a lot of gang and criminal on criminal violence. I want to see a study of those legally carrying a firearm. And most of the time when a firearm is legally brandished no shots are fired.

There's a good thread on this study in the guns forum. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=256837

[damntexdem]

31. And as predicted, the rejection of scientific findings is in full swing.

The study has weaknesses that the authors noted -- it is not at all BS.

[ItNerd4life]

39. It's NOT scientific, that's the problem.

Read the problems with the study above. If it was scientific, it wouldn't have these problems.

It was a study to promote an agenda. You would think that people on DU would understand the difference,
especially when Republicans do it all the time.

[Bill McBlueState]

132. A study does not have to be free of shortcomings to be scientific

"Scientific" just means that a particular type of method was followed.

[X_Digger]

240. See 'study of tooth fairies'..

.. applying scientific methodology to a false premise doesn't make good science.

[RamboLiberal]

64. And as predicted some here want to proclaim scientific

A study that clearly isn't.

[damntexdem]

10. Case-control study. Good for generating hypotheses.

Cannot establish causation; but as noted, a study that could would be unethical.

The hypothesis established is eminently reasonable. It can be tested in various ways not as effective as would the randomized experiment noted in the article to be unethical so not undertaken.

[spanone]

12. thems who love their guns will not be swayed

[caballero]

69. You are exactly right.

Which makes me wonder why some people are in full throttle attempts to restrict my Second Amendment Rights.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

159. thems who are scared of them won't be either

[Fla_Democrat]

14. and yet, I'm still going to do it

go figure. :shrug:

[chrisa]

15. Of course it does.

Pulling a gun in a situation that otherwise can be diffused is pure stupidity. As is trying to defend useless items like property or your wallet when you or those around you are in no danger of being shot. Even if you get mugged, what's the chance that the mugger would shoot you? Most just want your money, and that's not worth getting shot or shooting somebody over. Even so, muggers catch you by surprise anyway, so you're not going to have time to pull a gun out. I also agree with the article that it causes people to feel more invincible, causing them to be chased into ambushes or lose their gun to an attacker by making an extremely poor decision that usually costs them their lives (like chasing a burglar out of your house and into the darkness of the night, which is stupid). Police and civlians are prone to making the same mistakes (like a cop who was murdered years ago near where I live because he chased burglars and lost control of the situation).

With that being said, having a gun to protect yourself is an undeniable right given by the Constitution that should never be taken away.

[GreenStormCloud]

216. Translation: When being attacked, trust yourself to the tender mercies of a violent criminal.

Even so, muggers catch you by surprise anyway, so you're not going to have time to pull a gun out.
Only if you walk around with your head up your ass. Stay alert and watchful and you can see the crime coming in time to be prepared. The criminal will usually spot that you have just prepared for his attack and will not bother you but will go looking for an easier victim.

[chrisa]

277. But that's assuming.

You haven't been taken by surprise.

Who walks around all day thinking that a mugger will jump out and attack them? Wtf is this, Robin Hood? ;-)

As long as people don't go into bad areas at the wrong time of day, there's such a small chance of being attacked, it's really not worth CCW. If anything, having a gun would make somebody feel more secure and less alert. Using common sense will get people out of 1000X more situations than drawing a gun and taking your chances.

[Junkdrawer]

17. Wait..guns make you invulnerable to being shot...

With a gun, you can go places and do things you'd NEVER consider without one.

It's Magic.

[slackmaster]

24. Only a fool would make such a silly claim

:nuke:

[Terry in Austin]

70. Not to mention the inches they add to your man-business! -nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

282. Another gun grabber infatuated with penises.

[caballero]

71. Sure, just like gun-free zones guarantee no guns. Oh, wait...

Virginia Tech...

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. Correlation does not equal causation

[provis99]

182. oh, when it goes against your ideas, suddenly its only "correlation"

Yeah, right.

[Euromutt]

227. The study itself says so

The authors acknowledge that they "did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault" (i.e. that people who are at higher risk of being shot are more likely to carry a gun). Though that didn't stop them from writing the conclusion as if they had.

[undeterred]

22. Makes sense to me.

I would be afraid of being disarmed and having a gun used against me.

[damntexdem]

33. I would be afraid of having a gun used against me. Being without a gun would be irrelevant to that.

But I would be much-more afraid if I knew that others being threatened by a gun had guns of their own and might be stupid enough to try to use them (unless they were trained police). Such a situation would greatly increase the chances that I would be shot.

[asdjrocky]

28. Update to study-

Duh.

[The Straight Story]

32. Save the military and cops and secret service, take away their guns

:)

[GreenStormCloud]

211. Try it and you will hand congress to the Republicans for two generations. N/T

[Blu_Statr]

269. Or more...

People who use guns as "just another tool" don't take kindly to having their rights abridged or their character impugned. And they tend to have long memories. Just look at what happened in 1994...the Democratic Party would still be trying to recover a majority if the Republicans had displayed any sort of political competence.

[Taverner]

34. This is confusing correlation with causation

The hypothesis makes sense, but there is one reason that's not being talked about. People who buy guys do so for a reason. That reason could be anything from "protect my family" to "kill people who look at me funny." This shows then that those who own and carry guns, do it for reasons other than just looking cool. So someone might carry guns because they live in a bad neighborhood - which is the underlying cause of the danger. Some might carry guns because they like to shoot things - which might mean that they like to brandish weapons for intimidation.

[hedgehog]

37. Some time back, I read a post here that implied that unless you carried

a gun at all times, you would have no way to respond should you and your family be insulted at the 7-11. If someone is expecting looking for trouble every time they pay for gas at a suburban convenience store, I suspect sooner or later they'll find it.

Just my 2 cents. Add another 3 cents and you'll have a nickel.

[GreenStormCloud]

218. CCW holders don't draw guns over "insults" at a C-store.

We have to take classes on conflict avoidance and conflict de-escalation. Because we are armed, we must be able to walk away from insults and challenges. We actively seek to avoid trouble.

We only draw in true self-defense, not over a mere insult.

[TheKentuckian]

38. I'll take my chances. They are better than the wild eyed hope that a cop will save me.

because they are near the top of the reasons lots of people need guns. Imagine how out of hand they'd be with a zero percent chance of immediate repercussions.

Supporting gun control means you trust the heathens in blue quite a bit. I don't trust them an iota and would be much more comfortable getting rid of the cops than giving up my ability to try to defend myself. In fact, the only way I'd budge at all is if you disarmed the police state too and that ain't happening.

[DainBramaged]

40. Gun paranoia, here comes the boogie mans ooohhhhhhhhhh

Hug hug hug that gun to death.........

58 years, never ever anywhere thought it necessary to carry a gun. But we have people on here think trouble is looking for THEM and them only.

And apparently, it finds them.


Shooty shooty bang bang here comes the boogie mans.

[armyowalgreens]

75. "Shooty shooty bang bang here comes the boogie mans"

Really? Is that your counter argument? Jesus.

[DainBramaged]

95. Boomy boomy crack crack dadadadadada bang bang

[X_Digger]

241. Ahh, another well thought out, insightful post.

Self-portrait, is that?

[Euromutt]

275. I think you need...

...to refrain from posting while intoxicated.

[proteus_lives]

41. Oh, BS.

:thumbsdown:

[subcomhd]

42. This just in - Tractor Accidents Disproportionately Affect Farmers

[moondust]

43. Public health menace.

Some doctors used to screen their patients for guns in the home and warn gun owners of the statistics and increased risks of accidents, child endangerment, domestic dispute violence, etc. It has now been several years since I've heard of any doctors doing such screening although it may still exist in some places.

In 2006, there were 30,896 gun deaths in the U.S: 12,791 homicides (41% of total deaths), 16,883 suicides (55% of total deaths), 642 unintentional shootings (2% of total deaths), 360 from legal intervention (1.2% of total deaths) and 220 from undetermined intent (.8% of total deaths).

(Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2009.)

http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

It's a holocaust.

[X_Digger]

244. In 2006..

27,531 poisonings.. it's a holocaust!
21,647 fall deaths.. it's a holocaust!
45,509 motor vehicle deaths.. it's a holocaust!

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

[bleedinglib]

44. carrin' heat !!

Well, I live in an area where all the rednecks are carrin', so I figured
I might as well arm myself, just in case?
It was easy to git the permit (cost about $250.00) and a saturday in the company of a bunch of scary dudes. The gun safety course (sponsored by the nra) is required by this state to obtain your ccw permit. In this state you can legally carry a gun on your hip w/o a permit. To conceal it is where the permit comes in.
The female instructor was quite pretty and not scary at all. The first words out of her mouth were " if your gonna pull that smoke wagon? empty it" and be damn sure your life is in danger? That same week a legal gun toter ran after a purse snatcher and shot out the windows of his car. I believe he's still in jail? and the thief has filed a civil suit against him.
I grew up in a large mid-western city and a very bad neighborhood and worked in L.A. for forty years and never felt threatened or the need to carry. Now, at the age of 65 I carry a 9mm and a 32 for back-up. I'v got 25 rounds at my finger tips. I practice shoot about 50 rds. a week.
I'm teaching my wife to defend herself with a 22 revolver.
WHY? Thats a good question. I don't know if I'll be able to shoot someone or not? At risk of sounding paranoid, this situation in america
with the bad economy and the right-wingers hyping their nutball followers
into a frenzy, I will be prepared:hide:

[Winterblues]

49. treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.

Ya think??????

[Cleita]

50. I believe it. When I was a bartender, we were allowed to have a gun behind

the bar legally. The restaurant owners didn't for that reason, or the fact that the employees might shoot each other (so they said). Instead tighter non-lethal security was installed and seemed to be effective. We were the only establishment on the block that neither was burglarized nor held up in our neighborhood including a bank in the eight years I worked there.

[cherokeeprogressive]

51. I just wonder how many of those shot while carrying guns are bad guys shot by cops.

Cops who go to the shooting range multiple times every month.

If you wanted to show that normal people who carry guns put themselves at risk, you'd have to extract the number of BAD GUYS shot by well-trained COPS. Otherwise, it's a skewed statistic.

[RamboLiberal]

72. I think in this study it was more bad guys shot by bad guys

than by cops.

[Euromutt]

249. They did eliminate shootings ruled to be "legal interventions"...

...and only looked at cases classed as "assaults." They did get that part right, at least.

As an aside, though, I don't believe there are all that many cops who go to the range several times a month.

[Statistical]

52. I notice he didn't exclude those who were CARRYING ILLEGALLY.

He also didn't exclude people who carried SPECIFICALLY because their life was in danger.

Criminals are more likely to be murdered that the law abiding. Criminals often carry guns therefore holy smokes guess what those carrying (including criminals) are more likely to be shot and killed.

People who have a threat against their life are more likely to be killed. Many of those go out and get a firearm for self defense. It helps some of them but some will still be killed so wow again this subpopulation is more likely to die having a gun had nothing to do with it.

[Joe Fields]

56. you won't get a perfect study on this issue. but still, the findings speak volumes.

[Statistical]

80. Hardly.

A flawed study doesn't speak volumes unless it is a volume of crap.

Can you correlate for every single variable? No.

Can you correlate for the variables most likely to influence the outcomes such as criminal record, in the commission of a felony at the time of shooting, illegally owned firearm, a person who had threats against their life? Of course.

If you don't even do that then the results aren't statistically meaningful.

[Joe Fields]

88. Jeezus fucking Christ.....

The study took over 600 random murders.....

Of course the study wasn't perfect, but, as the article suggested, there is no way that you could get a perfect study on this issue.

So, that leaves the door naturally open for you gun nuts, who can justify damned near anything.

Go clean your fucking gun.

[cherokeeprogressive]

104. Jeezus Fucking Christ is right. Read the article. It says 677 SHOOTINGS, not murders.

Get your facts straight.

[RamboLiberal]

107. And most of those shootings had some link to drugs and/or gangs

And poverty, poor educations, hopelessness, a culture of crime, etc. Maybe if we eliminate these problems we'd get a handle on the violence. If you banned guns the criminals would still find a way to have guns. Look at Mexico for instance.

"Well I mean there are a number of things that go into the homicide rate," Mayor John Street. "There... this is... this is a social problem."

One major social condition is poverty, reports Solorzano. Philadelphia's poverty rate is the highest of any major U.S. city. And Philadelphia is overwhelmed with illegal weapons.

"Now we have youngsters as young as 13, 14, 15 with Tech nines and Mac tens, and semi-automatics," said Abraham.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/01/eveningnews/main2635629.shtml

I know a couple of hundred legal gun owners, most who carry daily, and not a damn one has been shot or murdered or shot someone else. A few have probably drawn their gun in self-defense. Maybe I should start my own study.

[caballero]

124. The Constitution of the United States is all the justification anyone needs.

Why don't you refer to writers as "word nuts" and tell them "go clean your fucking keyboard"? Much of the rationale for gun control is rooted in pure racism. Which obviously doesn't mean much to some folks.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

278. You might want to actually read it before you go running that mouth.

[TxRider]

130. Actually, they don't.

Not even close.

Even the study says so. ""We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous,"" Branas says.

There is your volume of speaking... ;)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

169. Engaging in criminal activity increases your odds of getting shot.

There are your findings.

[Blu_Statr]

270. Yeah, that tends to be conveniently overlooked.

Whether by accident or design, I don't know, but I've seen it happen before.

[trayfoot]

53. For a long time......

it has been known that more cops get killed by having their own guns turned ON them. Police are highly trained in handling and shooting guns. If their statistics are high, why does average "joe citizen" think they can do better?

[Statistical]

84. Not true at all.

In 2007 2 of 57 officers were killed with their own weapon.
In 2006 2 of 48 officers were killed with their own weapon.

In both years the number of officers intentionally killed with a vehicle as a weapon was twice as high.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2007/feloniouslykilled.html

Also most cops are killed during an arrest. Someone in an arrest isn't looking to kill a cop BECAUSE he/she has a weapon they are looking to kill a cop because they are attempting to avoid arrest.

[X_Digger]

246. Another casualty of 'common wisdom'..

.. that turns out to be a gold plated turd.

Thanks for the stats :)

[Joe Fields]

54. Oh, oh....but wait!!!! You may be able to get the drop on your attacker...

:eyes:

[GreenStormCloud]

212. With good situational awareness, you can be ready for an attack.

If you walk around oblivious to what is happening, you can be attacked by surprise. Learn to be aware, and you won't be surprised. You can be facing the attack, gun already in hand, when it happens - except that the criminal won't be dumb enough to attack into a gun. So he flees, no shots are fired, and you don't make it into the study.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

283. I post story after story of law abiding gun owners doing just that.

[BlooInBloo]

55. (shrug) It's their right to die as soon as they possibly can....

And I would never dream of taking that right away from them.

[DainBramaged]

60. Best point I've ever read about the gun huggers

:applause:

[BlooInBloo]

61. Even better when I get the right their/they're/there.

:P

[armyowalgreens]

67. I can rarely ever remember you contributing something meaningful to a conversation.

This is not an exception.

[BlooInBloo]

76. (shrug) We can't all be as smart, knowledgeable, and well-educated as you are.

[armyowalgreens]

79. All that shrugging must give you back problems.

[Joe Fields]

94. shouldn't you be polishing your GUN?

[armyowalgreens]

99. Yes. And later I'll clean off my spurs and wash out the spittoon.

The fact that you have such movie-like imagery of gun owners kind of reveals the fact that you are completely ignorant on this topic.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

175. After all we are mostly talking about teenagers and young adults of various minority groups.

Very sad that you wouldn't dream of reducing the deaths in that community.

[armyowalgreens]

62. Unrec'ed. Title of story and OP is a lie.

It fails to pass the correlation test. There are many other factors at work that they seem to barely hint at.

[Terry in Austin]

65. The "defending yourself" fallacy -- packing is just a ticket to a gunfight

"I want to carry a gun so I can defend myself against an attacker."

Oh. You've got a gun, attacker comes, end of story? Not exactly, which is the point of this research.

What if the attacker also has a gun? It means you now have a ticket to a gunfight, and your packing amounts to a bet that you're a better gunfighter than all comers. And you're willing to bet your life on it -- literally.

Well, pardner, you're much more of a betting man than I am!

Better bet: go where the guns aren't.

[DainBramaged]

73. Go to where the food is, go to where the guns ain't!

Sam Kinison and you ARE SO RIGHT.

[caballero]

87. Where would that be? Virginia Tech? Oh, wait...

:eyes:

[Terry in Austin]

98. Hanging around the schoolyards again, eh?

I'll pass.

[caballero]

119. Schoolyards?

:wtf:

[armyowalgreens]

121. The poster wast attempting to imply that you are a pedophile...

Or was at least suggesting that you have an unhealthy obsession with children.

In case you didn't miss the obvious.

I'd report.

[caballero]

127. I wondered about that but couldn't figure what I wrote that could even begin to suggest it.

I think I'll let it stand, it says more about him than me.
:hi:

[Terry in Austin]

223. If you can't take the heat, don't pack any

Maybe you can find something a little less lethal to show off with.

Until then, you get to wonder about becoming just another little man with a big toy.

Meanwhile, you probably won't notice how many healthy people with an interest in staying that way will make a point of staying out of range of you, leaving just you and other people who like to play with guns showing off for each other.

And that's fine -- you can have your Constitutional right to blow each other away, for all I care, just as long as I can have my Constitutional right to stay healthy and outside the blast radius of the next half-cocked hero acting out his Lone Ranger fantasies.

I can't imagine why it would matter, but just in case I've left anything out or you have any remaining question about what my particular view on this subject is, just let me know, bub, and I will be glad to explain it to you in no uncertain terms.

[GreenStormCloud]

219. What makes you think that an attacker will not kill me anyway?

My gun give me a good fighting chance.

If the attacker has only his fists or a knife or club, then I can have the upper hand real fast, from the start. (Remember that I don't walk around oblivious. I practice situational wareness.)

If he does have a gun, then most street criminals are incompetent in their use, and terrible shots. He will be up against a person who does practice.

You seem to believe that a mugger with a gun won't shoot you if you meekly beg for your life. There are lots of good people that are killed while begging a violent criminal for their life. Fighting give me a much better chance than throwing myself on the tender mercies of a psychopath, and a gun is the best way I can fight.

[Terry in Austin]

226. Fair enough

The key here is "chance," fighting or otherwise. You've bought your ticket to a gunfight, you've assessed your chances at coming out with the upper hand, and you've decided that the chances are good enough.

You're literally betting your life that the situation you stay so aware of will indeed play out as expected, and that it was worth getting into in the first place. You probably understand that there are hundreds of possible scenarios, each with its tactical requirements, and that surprises or misjudgments can be costly.

You are confident in betting that you can quickly and correctly identify what constitutes an "attack," what constitutes a "criminal," who is going to be a terrible shot, and who is not. As long as you're okay with all that, fine. Don't jump to any conclusions about what I believe about muggers, though -- it doesn't really matter.

I wish you luck in your bet, but I will also make a point of avoiding any sudden moves in your presence, and more likely, avoid your presence altogether. Nothing personal -- I'm just not as much of a betting man as you.

[GreenStormCloud]

251. What chance will YOU have if you are attacked?

You are trusting your life and health to the tender mercies of a violent felon if that happens.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

279. The point of the story is that criminals committing crimes are likely to be shot.

Especially criminals who carry guns.

[depakid]

66. The rationalizers crack me up- particularly since this is such an obvious finding

and has plenty of precedence in the epidemiological literature.

[caballero]

74. Using the same kind of 'methodology' I can "prove" that eating ice cream leads to meth use.

:eyes:

[depakid]

77. Bullshit

This is just one more in a series of epidemiological studies that the firearms obsessed don't like to see. Together they show an unmistakable and intuitive pattern.

Keep a gun around, and yours and your family or other household members are much more likely to be involved in a tragedy or become the victim or perpetrator of a violent crime.

Deal with it.

[caballero]

78. I'm keeping my guns.

Deal with it.

[Terry in Austin]

81. And I'm keeping away from you.

Dealing with it the best possible way, dude.

Enough people dealing with it, and you're liable to get a little lonesome -- if that makes any difference to you.

[caballero]

85. People who are working to deprive me of Constitutional rights probably should keep away

from me.

[depakid]

92. That's the usual paranoid response

Fact is that from a public health standpoint, having guns (particularly handguns) around is a bad idea for most folks is safety (or violent crime) is a concern.

Believe me- the majority of the family shooters didn't bring their guns home thinking "I'm going to shoot my spouse" or "I'm going to shoot the neighbor over a snowball fight or a dispute over raking leaves. They didn't think: my kid's going to shoot his little sister.

Or in most cases- that bravado might cause them to pull a gun rather than walk away from an avoidable conflict.

Understandable of course, when one realizes the extent that fear trumps reason in the United States these days. And that goes far beyond having guns around.

[armyowalgreens]

103. "fear trumps reason in the United States these days"- The irony meter just exploded.

[fascisthunter]

177. yes it did

because those who feel the need to buy guns to feel secure, are the most fearful people there are, which perpetuates more fear, and more guns.

[armyowalgreens]

203. Stop wearing seat belts. Stop using oven mitts. Stop using house alarms...

Stop wearing bicycle helmets. Stop using 911 when you need emergency assistance. Stop wearing jackets when it's cold. Stop getting flu shots and vaccines. Stop turning off the switch before you replace a light bulb. Stop checking for scorpions or spiders before you reach into a dark place in garage. Stop testing each foot step when you are hiking up the side of the mountain; just jump.

Stop heating meat to 160 degrees. Stop taking vitamins and minerals. Stop eating a balanced diet. Stop seeing the doctor.

Start going outside during lightening storms. Make sure to carry a 9 iron high in the air.


See, what you are suggesting is that gun owners purchased their gun out of "fear". And on a certain level, you are correct. Fear or caution is what drives us to purchase a firearm for protection.

But on another level, you do all sorts of things and buy all sorts of products to alleviate mild fear or caution on a daily basis.

So don't mock us for doing something out of fear when you are doing the exact same thing.

[fascisthunter]

204. seriously ... you really comparing all that to guns... lol

Can my seat belt accidentally shoot and kill somebody? No...

You do realize a gun is designed to be a weapon for a person to shoot and kill right? Guns aren't even remotely similar to the safety items you listed above. One is designed to kill or maim, the things you listed are designed to keep humans safe without harming others.

Guns being bought for the sake of safety is an irony. Unless you work for law enforcement, where you place yourself in direct danger, the chance of you needing one is slim to none. You are more likely to have an accident with the gun than have any need to use one.

Guns for carry is nuts.

[armyowalgreens]

206. "Guns being bought for the sake of safety is an irony."

You may very well be beyond help.


"Can my seat belt accidentally shoot and kill somebody?"

No, but your car can accidentally hit and kill someone. I guess you should stop driving those dangerous cars. Why are you such a car nut?


"You do realize a gun is designed to be a weapon for a person to shoot and kill right?"

No I had no fucking clue. Please, enlighten me on other mysteries of the world.


"Guns aren't even remotely similar to the safety items you listed above."

And you absolutely failed to see my very obvious point to that post. I am not trying to say that a gun is like an oven mitt or a vaccine. I said that we do various things to protect ourselves and make ourselves feel secure.


"Unless you work for law enforcement, where you place yourself in direct danger, the chance of you needing one is slim to none."

Yeah and just wait until that "slim" chance of needing one comes up and you'll realize the error of your ways. Different cities or places have different levels of danger. And some areas might justify the carrying of a concealed weapon.

Also, most cops in most cities are not in "direct danger" as you so elegantly put it. They are beat cops that will likely never discharge their weapon. In my home town of Gilbert, Arizona, the police spend 99 percent of their time writing traffic tickets. Yet they carry guns.

[fascisthunter]

208. I don't want your help... just because I don't buy your gun culture

authoritarian crap means I don't feel the need to own one. I'm not afraid of the world like you are. Get over it!

[armyowalgreens]

209. I'm authoritarian? You are the one that only wants cops to carry firearms.

Yes the irony meter was just repaired. Unfortunately, this recent post by yourself caused it to explode again.


Just an FYI, I don't currently even own a firearm.

"I'm not afraid of the world like you are. "


Main Entry: hy·per·bo·le
Pronunciation: \hī-ˈpər-bə-(ˌ)lē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from Greek hyperbolē excess, hyperbole, hyperbola, from hyperballein to exceed, from hyper- + ballein to throw — more at devil
Date: 15th century
: extravagant exaggeration (as “mile-high ice-cream cones”)

[fascisthunter]

213. yes... carrying a gun makes one very authoritarian

It's why police are called "the authorities". Most of us accept their role, until they abuse that power, which we lawfully gave them. We give them the authority to serve and protect, which is much different from just submitting to their abuse of power to control us. That's not what is considered to be blind submission to an authority... it's a pact or agreement between the people and those who volunteer to serve and protect.

Do you or do you not accept the concept of serving and protecting? If you do, you'd be an authoritarian yourself, at least according to your use of the word.

Yes, Merriam-Webster is so useful... I can cut and paste too.

Main Entry: au·thor·i·tar·i·an
Pronunciation: \ȯ-ˌthär-ə-ˈter-ē-ən, ə-, -ˌthȯr-\
Function: adjective
Date: 1879
1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents>
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime>
— authoritarian noun
— au·thor·i·tar·i·an·ism \-ē-ə-ˌni-zəm\ noun

You seem to have a nack for hyperbole yourself....

As for you not owning a gun, why not? You seem to be in favor of owning one for protection. At least you seem to disagree strongly with my premise that fear is a motivating factor for wanting a gun, especially to carry. I guess you really don't need it after all, which would be consistent with the point I made earlier and would also support the article above. People are more likely to harm themselves or others inadvertently, rather than find a need to use one in case of an emergency.

[armyowalgreens]

217. ...

You just called me authoritarian for believing that citizens should be allowed to own guns as protection. And you just posted the definition that disproves your original argument. It is you that is being authoritarian by only wanting police officers to own guns.

The 2nd definition doesn't help you at all. I am suggesting that each person has power to control their welfare when it seems that other forms of protection are insufficient. This is not concentrating power. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

I am absolutely in favor of responsible persons owning a firearm for protection. And, yes, the need for one is usually based onn a rational fear of attack. It may range from a mild to severe fear depending on where you live. I never said that it wasn't rooted in fear. In fact, I said that it was up thread.


I don't own a firearm because I am currently suffering from suicidal depression. Otherwise, I'd have a 12 gauge under my bed.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

285. Fear is definitely the motivating factor in wanting to take guns away.

[GreenStormCloud]

221. Total Bullcrap !!!!

Believe me- the majority of the family shooters didn't bring their guns home thinking "I'm going to shoot my spouse" or "I'm going to shoot the neighbor over a snowball fight or a dispute over raking leaves.

With the exception of the rare shooting accident, family shooters always have a history of violence. Investigation always shows that they he (Rarely a woman) will have been beating his wife for a long time, until it finally escalates to murder.

The idea that the gun-grabbers promote of the well-adjusted peaceful husband suddenly losing it in an argument and grabbing a handy gun is a myth. It doesn't happen that way.

Or in most cases- that bravado might cause them to pull a gun rather than walk away from an avoidable conflict.

Doesn't happen that way. Murderers almost always have lengthy police records and can't get a CCW. In fact, their conviction records bar then from even touching a gun. CCW holders are screened for stability.

[X_Digger]

247. Captain "Correlation / Causation, what's the diff?" to the rescue! n/t

[Terry in Austin]

96. But then you'd be depriving them of their Constitutional right to your company

They need you, bro!

Me, not so much. Not if you're packing.

B-)

[GreenStormCloud]

222. How do you know who is carrying concealed? N/T

[Terry in Austin]

228. If I told you, that'd give you the edge, wouldn't it?

All will be revealed in the fullness of time, grasshopper

:hippie:

[GreenStormCloud]

254. Translation: You don't know.

If you aren't going to attack me, then I am not worried about having an edge on you.

If you are a street criminal, you will give yourself away by the actions that you will have to take prior to the actual attack. And in that case, I will have a very strong edge.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

281. The stupid just burns right through.

[Scout]

115. why? what are you going to do if they don't, shoot them? n/t

[caballero]

126. No. I fart in their general direction.

>poot

[Scout]

145. big threats from a small man :rofl: n/t

[Terry in Austin]

167. Enjoy your stay

Don't let the door hit ya...

[caballero]

195. Ah, threats. I sure love the warm welcome to this big tent.

:eyes:

[TxRider]

136. No, because you will never know I'm packin...

That's the "concealed" part..

[depakid]

142. The EMT will know...

Just sayin'

;-)

[Pavulon]

147. Looks like handgun crimes are up in NSW, despite a ban?

now how is that possible...

[depakid]

151. Ethnic bikie gangs

limited to certain sections Sydney- unlike the US, where shootings happen everywhere- and so frequently that they often never make the papers. The bikes gangs shoot each other over turf and "commerce" - whereas Americans of all stripes and socioeconomic status shoot each other (and their families) for whatever reason- or in the case of kids, for none at all.

[Treo]

161. Define "ethnic" it sounds kind of racist to me NT

[Pavulon]

163. In his defense he is in Australia. Terms have very different

meanings and what sounds racist is probably not. Mighty damn early in the AM there too.

[depakid]

166. Read this SBS piece for the sociological explanation:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1014115/Ethnic-overtones-in-bikie-wars

[Treo]

180. So essentially the violence is along ethnic lines

I'm not sure that it's quite the same but in America a lot of violence is Black on Black violence.

[depakid]

196. Among and between ethnic groups

Many of whom have had had age old feuds in their own countries (Lebanon and the Balkan regions, for example). SBS, btw, is Australia's cultural "free to air" (broadcast) network, so the pieces is actually a bit on the mild side relative to what you'll read in other sources.

[Pavulon]

162. Not true, if you can see a golf course (you doubled up in spite of ban)

you probably dont need to worry about gun crime. If you live in public housing, you are much more probable to be involved as a victim.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sydney-gun-crimes-double/2006/08/30/1156816939675.html

[depakid]

185. "See a golf course?"

:rofl:

firearms crimes and violence in the very worst sections of Australia's largest city are a fraction of what they are in the relatively safe Portland, Oregon metropolitan area.

And of course, that excludes family shootings, kids getting hold of guns, random violence, etc.

[Pavulon]

191. correlate income to crime, start in greenwich ct.

nominal murder rate. If your wealthy this is not your problem. If you are poor and maybe a minority you are much more likely to be a victim. That is how it works here.

[depakid]

200. Probably similar in Australia- though the country's far more egalitarian

Take the Hunter region. About the size (and population) of the Eugene and the Willamette valley.

Had a shooting there about a year ago- and it made ALL the national papers.

http://news.theage.com.au/national/man-arrested-over-hunter-valley-shooting-20080919-4jon.html

In that time, there have probably been 100 in the Willamette region.

Of course, the Hunter region's unemployment is around 4.4% -whereas the Willamette Valley's probably upwards of 14% these days.

On the other hand, thanks to new laws controlling Meth precursors (which were roundly decried as "nanny state")- Oregon had a huge drop in crime between 2007-2008. Unfortunately, stats from this past year won't look anywhere near so pretty, with a mass shooting downtown and a triple murder over in Elgin being a few more prominent examples.

[PavePusher]

231. But I thought the guns were banned.

Or does 'banned' have a different meaning in Australia?

You seem to be avoiding the point...

[Euromutt]

259. You really have no clue, do you?

Does it really not occur to you for an instant that gun crime in the United States follows the exact same pattern? Young, black urban males are disproportionally represented among both the perpetrators and the victims of shootings in the United States, and cities with large black populations like Detroit, Baltimore, Compton, Memphis and Oakland are remarkably homicide-ridden. It's not a race thing; rather, it's that due to socio-economic circumstances, this demographic is particularly susceptible to the lure of the illegal drug trade. In the drug trade, because it's illegal, the only available method of settling business disputes permanently is by killing the other person. This method of, ahem, conflict resolution then carries over into no-business disputes as well (in particular, over "respect").

Drugs policy and socio-economic inequality has a hell of a lot more to do with the American homicide rate than the availability of firearms.

[Blu_Statr]

273. Thank-you

You "get it". I wish some of the rest of us would.

[GreenStormCloud]

220. Texas has hundred of thousands of CHL holders. How do you keep away from them? N/T

[Terry in Austin]

229. With great skill and good sense.

And if you're one, I'm not about to tell you!

[GreenStormCloud]

252. Translation: You don't have the faintest ideas who around you on the street is armed. N/T

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

280. You could go to a shrink about those phobias.

[Euromutt]

260. "An unmistakable and intuitive pattern"?

You mean a large number of medical and public health journals will print any study that concludes that Guns Are Bad, no matter how shoddy the research, or how obviously the conclusions are not actually supported by the data? I don't about "intuitive," but it's pretty unmistakable.

This particular study displays a lot of the same problems that Kellermann's "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home" (NEJM, October 7, 1993, Vol. 329 No. 15) did. Just like with this study, Kellermann and his fellow authors failed to examine which direction the causal relationship, if any, ran, but wrote the conclusion as if they had. Both groups of researchers rather unconvincingly claimed they'd controlled for confounding factors to deflect criticism that their control groups did not resemble their study groups (but why not select better controls in the first place?).

Kellermann's work was a particularly egregious example of agenda-based publication bias because the NEJM and the peer reviewers accepted his work even though he held back his research data. What kind of peer reviewer recommends publication of a study when the author won't show the evidence?

It's worth noting, incidentally, that this "series of epidemiological studies" to which you refer were largely written by a very small group of people: the aforementioned Arthur Kellermann, Garen Wintemute, David Hemenway, Matthew Miller, Deborah Azrael, these are names that appear on study after study in this series of yours. Miller and Hemenway have also on occasion refused to let other researchers look at their data. Why would any researcher who was confidant of the soundness of his research refuse to show his notes? They might also need to be reminded that replication of your results doesn't count when you're replicating your own study.

[gatorboy]

100. Now I'd like to see that!

Ready when you are. :)

[slackmaster]

114. Here's one that "proves" that eating candy turns kids into serial killers

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/food/news/article.cfm?c_id=206&objectid=10600645

A sweet a day helps kids grow up violent
11:27AM Thursday Oct 01, 2009
By Jeremy Laurence

A British study says eating sweets every day makes children more likely to become violent offenders. Photo / Doug Sherring

Does eating too many sweets makes kids violent?

Banish the chocolate bars and lock up the gobstoppers - letting your children eat sweets could turn them into serial killers, according to psychiatrists.

The surprising claim is made by researchers who found that children who ate sweets and chocolate every day were more likely to be violent as adults.

The finding is based on analysis of almost 17,500 participants in the 1970 British Cohort Study, which showed that 10-year-olds who ate confectionery daily were significantly more likely to have been convicted for a violent crime in their early 30s.

Psychiatrists from Cardiff University found that 69 per cent of the participants who had convictions for violence had eaten sweets and chocolate nearly every day during their childhood, compared to 42 per cent who were non-violent....

[caballero]

129. Thanks, I had that recent 'report' in mind. Years ago I found a 'study' that clearly showed

something like 95% of all hard drug users had previously eaten ice cream...which is enough to suggest to scientifically illiterate agenda-driven demagogues a cause and effect.
grrr

[slackmaster]

144. CHILDRENS' ICE CREAM?!?!?!?!?!

[caballero]

131. You can do it yourself, just ask 200 meth users if they ever ate ice cream

as kids. Divide the number who say yes by 2 and you have the percentage.
;-)

[gatorboy]

133. Did you come up with that one yourself or did Slackmaster have to help.

;)

[caballero]

197. By myself...but I would have welcomed support from any of the approx. 50% of DUers who agree

with me. Or have you missed the numerous polls showing that? I've been reading here for years.

[Pavulon]

155. Rationalize the up-tic in murder with handguns in NSW. Despite a ban.

how does that compute. Oh wait, those people just ignored the law

[NeedleCast]

83. How many of them were LEGALLY carrying guns?

Does this "study" say how many of the people who were carrying guns who were shot were carrying guns legally?

[joeybee12]

86. But, but, but second amendment, but, but but, let me give

you ancedotal evidence that this is wrong and guns ALWAYS protect innocent people...ALWAYS!

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

112. Learn to read.

[PavePusher]

232. Please point out where anyone claims that. Please. n/t

[Zomby Woof]

90. These threads are far more fun than the Vegan/Non-vegan threads

:beer: :popcorn:

[slackmaster]

118. I'm sticking with my New Year's Resolution not to make fun of or torment vegetarians or vegans

Gun, porn, and sex-with-young-girls threads are much more entertaining.

[B Calm]

91. One of my old co-workers shot and killed two young people a couple

weeks ago. They were only 17 and 21 yrs old. They forced their way into his house holding a shotgun and demanding money. They followed him and his wife to their bedroom, where my co-worker pulled a handgun out of his dresser and shot the young man holding the shotgun. The 17 year old took off running and my friend shot him dead at the bottom of the stairway. Their was another kid outside in a car and he took off when he heard the gun shots. He drove two blocks away and called 911. He was the brother of the 17 year old. Turns out the kids were holding an unloaded shotgun. My old co-worker returned to work this week and is getting counseling for traumatic stress. He'll never be the same person he was. Did he do the right thing? I say yes, he didn't have a choice and did what he had to do.

[Edweird]

108. For criminals maybe... otherwise I call BS.

[depakid]

117. Good fodder for further study

if you can get access the data (which isn't something that the NRA would be pleased about, given the probability of what research would find).

Also- in case you didn't noticed- the researchers accounted for ge, sex and ethnicity as well as confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighborhood.

[GreenStormCloud]

224. The researchers did not account for DGUs with no-shots-fired.

Most defensive guns uses do not involve actually firing any shots. In fact, over 99%+ of the time, the would be criminal will turn tail and run when he finds that his intended victim is armed. None of those situations make it into the study, but they are real life happenings. I know several people who have defended themselves in that way. I don't know any who have shot someone in self-defense, not counting law enforcement or military veterans.

[Obamanaut]

137. So does leaving the safety of your home. nt

[old mark]

141. Did ther make a distinction between people legally carrying guns

and criminals carrying guns, or was everyone lumped together as is usually the case with these sort of "studies".....the bias is there beforehand, the statistics tailored to fit the theory.

mark

[caballero]

202. It's the same sort of dishonesty fundies use to 'prove' creationism. Start with a conclusion and

work backward to a set of a priori assumptions, discarding along the way anything that doesn't support the 'result.'

[Kaleva]

143. Study doesn't say if the guns were legally carried or not.

Nor does the study say if the perp knew his or her victim was carrying a weapon.

[RyboSlybo]

148. For responsible liberals it would be wise to own firearms...

I've seen the utter hatred from the far right towards anyone with opposing views.

If given the opportunity some would be quick to kill you and say it was ordained by God.

I hate violence in any form but in my mind to leave yourself defenseless in these times when those who proclaim you to be their enemy and traitors to this Nation are just waiting for the right time to excersise their itchy trigger fingers...

:hide:

[Treo]

165. I f you want utter hatred of opposing viewpoints

Look no further than this thread. Oddly enough it only seems to be coming from one side though

[RyboSlybo]

174. I've spent plenty of time in your Gun forumns...

I've seen those from the right crying for a Civil War. Craving it.

Who in their right minds could possibly hope for such a disaster?

Always asking eachother... "Is it go time yet?"

I stand by my statements, liberals would be wise to arm themselves for protection from those on the right who are just waiting for the right time to kill anyone with opposing viewpoints.

[Treo]

176. And I'll stand by mine

There's plenty of that hate to be had right here in this thread. ( as a clarification I am NOT lumping you W/ the haters)

[fascisthunter]

179. nobody here is talking about killing folks

How you could make the statement you just did, tells me you are desperately trying to defend the right and attack the left. What you stated was a lie.

[Treo]

186. I never said that anyone was advocating killing folks

I never said that anyone was advocating killing folks and neither did the poster I was talking with. he/she said there was an utter hatred of opposing viewpoints. The poster did comment that they had visited "my" RW gun forums the only "gun forum " I participate in was founded by a former DU member and any talk( let alone advocation) of civil war would earn the poster a summary ban.

And again I see all the hate I need to see right here In this thread (W/ no mention of DU in general)

[RyboSlybo]

189. Let me apologize I did not mean "Your gun forumns"

I was talking about some of the Gun forumns I have frequented in the past that am no longer willing to be a part of because of the utter hatred I have witnessed.

I tried to support the cause of the 2nd amendment but there is something more there.

And it honestly scares me, I want to see our nation unified... not divided...

[Treo]

193. We're cool NT

[fascisthunter]

215. hatred of differing viewpoints is one thing

but there is far less hatred than when somebody wants to kill people due to their differing viewpoints. The right wing does that, we don't.

You are being touchy by claiming there is lot's of hatred here. You want to see what hatred really looks like, go visit a right wing web site, troll for a while. Huge difference... nice try though.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

284. More than enough hatred here.

Just look back on threads involving a conservative dying of cancer or when a conservative dies.

[RyboSlybo]

183. I agree with you... but there is hate on both sides...

I support the 2nd amendment however the rhetoric on the right is heavy, you have to have seen this for yourself.

[Treo]

188. I think the rhetoric on both EXTREMES is heavy

The centrists on both sides are IMO interchangeable. I think both sides need to recognize that and quit allowing the ends to pull the center apart.

[RyboSlybo]

192. I couldn't agree with that statement more...

:toast:

[RedCloud]

149. You'all need to git you one of these here...

Folks'll think twice before they knock on your door interrupting your movie viewing pleasure...



http://www.vincelewis.net/metalstorm.html

[Dirtyhairy]

150. A lot of gun owners are idiots.

He makes a good point.

"While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't"

You don't pull a gun unless you have no other choice and are ready to use it without hesitation. There are also probably a lot of gun owners who rarely go to the range.

I'd like to see a study about shootings involving off duty/former cops and military. I bet the numbers would be quite different.

[Blu_Statr]

274. [Yawn}..another armchair wannabe psychiatrist?

If you'd bother learning about people who carry (either because they need to on the job, or because they have decided it's the right/smart thing to do) instead of watching so much TV, you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself with this last comment.

The _first_ thing they taught us in "carry-class" is that "a gun never solves a problem, it only makes you a different kind of victim" (as in _probably_ alive). The second thing was that a gun never gets any lighter/easier to carry as the day goes on.

They've actually done some studies (I'd have to go dig them up, it's been about 10-15 years), finding that many gun owners go to the range and practice _more_ than LEOs (Law Enforcement Officers), because for the LEOs, a gun is just another piece of equipment, kind of like a hammer or a computer. For the gun owners, it's a hobby/recreational pastime with potential lifesaving benefits.

If you're that interested, you can probably find the info online for yourself.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

152. This is the study that used drug dealers and gang members as subjects.

I'm sure that won't skew the statistics.

[grantcart]

157. what percentage of guns in the US are owned by drug dealers and gang members?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

168. I have no idea.

[Dirtyhairy]

171. A lot less than law-abiding gun owners.

But drug dealers and gang members are far more likely to be involved in shootings.

[Lagomorph]

154. Probably because if both parties are armed there's gonna be a gunfight....

For those who would rather die on their feet than live on their knees, this is probably acceptable.

But then, I'm just speculating.

[GreenStormCloud]

264. No gunfight if the criminal has brought a knife to the fight.

Usually street felons are armed with knives, clubs, are just their fists. Guns are an extremely effective defense against such.

Whatever makes you think that a violent psychopath is going to allow you to live on your knees? They don't think like you and I do.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

156. Engaging in criminal activity increases your odds of getting shot.

[ddeclue]

160. Post hoc ergo propter hoc..

I'm certainly not a gun nut and actually think guns should be more regulated than they are but this study is silly.

How do you establish cause and effect? Perhaps people who carry guns do so because they live in bad neighborhoods or have dangerous jobs where they are already more likely to get shot. If so then the gun is a symptom not a cause of the problem.

:eyes:

[depakid]

164. Researchers aren't looking for "cause & effect"

They're looking at relative and attributed risks, while controlling for confounding variables.

[ddeclue]

170. Not what the story says - it attributes cause to carrying.

I'm sorry but this is more junk science.

Mind you I'm all for regulating guns far more than they are today but using nonsense like this as justification will only backfire.

[Pavulon]

173. Just curious, what would you change? (nt)

[depakid]

178. Apparently you don't understand how to read an epidemiological study

or a summary of one.

[Euromutt]

201. Have you read the abstract, at least?

From the horse's mouth: http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2008.143099v1

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

Clear recommendation, yes?

However, not mentioned in the abstract, or the press release, is that the researchers "did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault", i.e. did not account for the possibility that certain people carry a firearm because they're in a group that is at elevated risk of being shot. The study's conclusions are equivalent to saying that, because possession of insulin is strongly associated with being diabetic, "users should reconsider their possession of" insulin, or that because possession of parachutes is strongly associated with injury as a result of jumping out an aircraft, "users should reconsider their possession of" parachutes.

When a study's conclusions turn out to not actually be supported by the data, I think it's fair to write it off as junk.

[tortoise1956]

237. No, but I analyze data for a living

I have copied a post I put in an earlier thread quoting the same study...


The study itself points out the main inconsistency - the the sample dataset was predominantly from a group that doesn't begin to represent a random sampling of the population of Philadelphia, while the control group was. That invalidates conclusions drawn between the two sets.

Another big issue is that this was based on a sample size of 6% of a group of 677 individuals, or 40-41 individuals. It's been a long time since I dealt with statistics of this type, but I would hesitate to draw any conclusions based on a sample size of 41, drawn from an extremely small subset of the general population. I certainly would smack any of my analysts who tried to pass off a comparison between this small subset and random individuals of a city as having any validity.

Sure you want to stand behind this study, Ace?

[Kaleva]

172. I wonder why hunters aren't killed by the dozens where I live

[cliffordu]

190. Inside about 12 feet a motivated knife wielding perp is more dangerous.

[benEzra]

198. Except the study didn't bother to look at people licensed to carry...

or who carry guns and didn't get shot. It looked at people, mostly criminals and unarmed victims, in inner-city hospitals, and used self-reported cold-call phone questioning as the "control group."

The wonder here is that the study actually made it out of peer review.

[fascisthunter]

205. facts the gun lobby has spent millions to dismiss, bury, and

twist...

[Blu_Statr]

272. Really - I've been gypped! Where's my money???

Dismiss - - I will agree with, much of it isn't worth the trouble to read and analyze.

Bury - - yes, for the same reason, much time wasted debunking myths, lies and half-truths.

Twist??? Please provide some proof.

[spin]

210. However, not carrying a gun might increase my chances of getting shot and killed...

I'm not a gang member, just a law abiding citizen with a concealed carry permit.

I've carried one for years and never been shot and killed.

Hopefully, I'll carry one for many more years and die without ever being shot or having to use my weapon. I don't go looking for trouble and I don't believe I'm a cop. I keep my wits about me and treat everyone with respect.

I'm just a kindly old fart with a bad limp who parks in handicap zones.

[Blu_Statr]

271. Please read "How to Lie With Statistics" before you accept this study...

By Darrell Huff (sp), copyright 1954. Should be required reading for all high school student, they wouldn't be nearly so easily swayed by garbage statistics.