Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed

[kallend 2,112]

I'm sure you are a far more highly qualified researcher than the team who conducted this study

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I'm sure you are a far more highly qualified researcher than the team who conducted this study

I spent so time looking around the site

I bet they are your students! Those that would make YOU proud

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327273.800-climate-change-may-trigger-earthquakes-and-volcanoes.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

and would rather put someone in the ground than give him my watch

I'd rather give him my watch and let him think I was unarmed. My weapon is for defense of my life, not a POS watch on my wrist.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I guess you (and a bunch of others) just knee jerked rather than reading.

"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."

Just because they said they did such a thing doesn't mean they did it well. Or honestly.

As I said, most shootings aren't random, nor surprising. There is compelling reasons for the victims to have guns at the time. Or if you look at the other citation listed, it said 2/3rds of shooting victims in Philly had mug shots at the police stations.

The correlation here is that criminals tend to have guns, and they tend to shoot at each other. Being a criminal is the key, not having a gun.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'm sure you are a far more highly qualified researcher than the team who conducted this study

when it comes to gun control research, the less qualified the better!

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

Quote

I'm sure you are a far more highly qualified researcher than the team who conducted this study

when it comes to gun control research, the less qualified the better!

Ignorance is bliss for you, eh?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

Quote

I'm sure you are a far more highly qualified researcher than the team who conducted this study

I spent so time looking around the site

I bet they are your students! Those that would make YOU proud

Do you like making yourself look foolish?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

I'm sure you are a far more highly qualified researcher than the team who conducted this study

I don't claim to be. The only "research" I did was to look for some support for a claim that most victims of shooting are criminals. I was surprised as all hell that the best supporting document I found quickly was from the same city as this "study"

But I am pretty good at recognizing anti-gun propaganda disguised as a scientific study.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[nigel99 574]

Quote

Quote

I guess you (and a bunch of others) just knee jerked rather than reading.

"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."

Just because they said they did such a thing doesn't mean they did it well. Or honestly.

As I said, most shootings aren't random, nor surprising. There is compelling reasons for the victims to have guns at the time. Or if you look at the other citation listed, it said 2/3rds of shooting victims in Philly had mug shots at the police stations.

The correlation here is that criminals tend to have guns, and they tend to shoot at each other. Being a criminal is the key, not having a gun.

Ok I see, so by inference a person with a gun is more likely to be a criminal - makes sense

Seriously I think there is a bucket load of macho thinking amongst people who carry guns for self defence. I grew up in a war zone and I most of my male friends over the age of 45 have either been shot at, or shot at people. In all honesty without proper training (military) I think having a gun is a liability. For one thing it is dangerous to have a gun lying around a house where it is easily accessible - and so the likelihood of actually having it when needed are slim. Secondly I would expect that on the street if you are taken by surprise you are unlikely to get your gun out in time - and if you are "that" trigger happy/ready that you are, I believe the chances or you getting a fright and pulling a gun on an innocent would go up dramatically (balloon pops and out comes your gun drawn and ready)

At 16 years old at a friends farm we had an armed intruder who shot at one of his managers. The men went out "hunting" for the guy and I was left with a loaded shotgun and his wife and kids locked in a bathroom and told to shoot anyone who tried to come through the door unless I "knew" who they were. I was shaking so much I doubt I would have hit the door if I tried - it really is different to hunting animals.

Personally I think guns for self-defence are misguided and a waste of time - for fun and hunting no problem (and as per one of JR's specifications keeping your government from going out of line - perhaps, although somehow I thinking that you could possibly confront the government/US Military is ever so slightly Alice in Wonderland).

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

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

While it makes arguments easier, correlation does not imply causality.

Youth gang members get shot more. People committing felonies get shot more. I'd argue that's because they're gang bangers and felons, not because they carry guns more often than other people.

Even under Democratic presidents the Justice Department National Crime and Victimization surveys show significantly lower injury rates when victims defend themselves against robbers using guns compared to complying with their attackers, running away, or any other armed or unarmed resistance.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

I'm sure you are a far more highly qualified researcher than the team who conducted this study

My experience has been that most "researchers" without commercial motivations are looking for facts which support their prejudices (and peer approval) instead of answers.

It's sad that we live in a world where people can get PhDs without moving beyond their animal emotions and actually using their brains to actually think about facts.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

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

new scientist - my favouritest magazine ever

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

looks like your post quoting the entire article was binned. Karen was asking for the study NOT the article however.

Which is why I binned it, I realised what she was saying just after I pressed the post reply button. I'm guessing you were the only person that saw it.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[SkyChimp 0]

No more likely then a person driving a car, more likely to die in an auto accident.

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

i've only had to "throw down" one time

We are all engines of karma

[kbordson 8]

OK.... short of actually spending $30 dollars for a one day view of that article (Other options are not reasonable options: American Journal of Public Health is not in my hospitals Ovid database, it's an EPub journal ahead of print so I can't order a hard copy, membership to AJPH is $195/year) I did some personal research into this article.

Examining the bias of the five authors (Branas CC, Richmond TS, Culhane DP, Ten Have TR, Wiebe DJ.)

Branas CC - VERY published, per pubmed, He has 50 published articles. However, according to F.I.C.A.P (The Firearm and Injury Center at Penn, 25 of those publications were as lead author from 2000-2007 regarding firearms violence. Now, while he might be VERY smart and what he concludes might be VERY valid points. One MUST acknowledge a bias here.

Richmond, TS. She has 48 published articles per F.I.C.A.P (The Firearm and Injury Center at Penn). Same bias concerns

Culhane DP is a professor in Psychiatry with 21 publications per pubmed - medical problems and homelessness, child welfare, social and structural dimensions of urban neighborhoods. Diverse examinations of psych and public health views. (no lead author publications per F.I.C.A..P.)

Ten Have TR I would have to personally consider having him on the list of authors as a true plus for this study. He is a Professor of Biostatistics in Biostastics and Epidemiology. He's a numbers cruncher. Of his other 65 journal articles, the topics were varied including Corticosteroids and mortality in children with bacterial meningitis, Baseline patient characteristics and mortality associated with longitudinal intervention compliance and Adaptive designs for randomized trials in public health. I would bet that he was included to attempt to distance FACT from bias. (no lead author publications per F.I.C.A.P.)

[url "http://www.med.upenn.edu/apps/faculty/index.php/g275/p33678">Wiebe DJ. Again, very well publisned - 59 articles per pubmed, but 25 of those were listed on F.I.C.A.P website. Same bias.

Looking at that, 3 of the 5 authors seem to have considerable bias AGAINST firearms. Just like on this forum, when you see certain posters respond... you KNOW which slant they are going to take, same with "research" (although I do, again, give them credit for including Dr. Ten Have) While I'm not willing to call them "a bunch of idiots" or "morons" like some on this site, I do have to listen with an understanding of their beliefs.

(sidenote: the pubmed links to published works will not let me directly link to that specific author, you will need to type in that individuals name to view the actual titles)


Discussion of data:

The study used an n of 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault with a control of 684. But in that same time period, according to Philadelphia Police Crime Statistics, there were 332,428 major cases of crime reports with 40,150 being related to aggravated assault. Using those numbers, the "n" in the study only represented 0.20% of all major crime in the Philadelphia area and 1.68% of all aggravated assault cases. But lets be honest here, those stats are for ALL of Phili. If we narrow it down to potential demographics associated with the U of Phili (zip code 19104) That encompasses 3 police districts (District 16, 17 and 19) and referring back to page 2 of Philadelphia Police Crime Statistics , you can click and calculate the crime per year for each of the districts. I calculated it to a total n of 35,986 cases of major crime with 5863 cases of aggravated assault. Giving a more reasonable parallel with the study where the "n" of 677 would represent 1.8% of all major crime and 11% of aggravated assault.

SO... with an 11% sampling of that population, what parallels can be inferred?

1. The findings are localized to THAT population demographics.
Going back to the Philadelphia Police Department site - look at the crime statistics for those 3 districts. They might not be the worst (that would be districts 15, 25, 12, and 18) but these three (districts 16,17 and 19) closely follow. So we MUST acknowledge that this isn't suburban America.

2. Are these LEGALLY carried firearms? Because... that is what the lawmakers are going to use this study to argue: Guns are bad and laws make things "safer." So were these legally owned and carried? Going to www.legallyarmed.com (I tried to find non biased stats through the Pennsylvania sites, but they didn't have the numbers listed), there are 627,068 people with concealed carry permits in the state. (not specific to Phili, nor to that zip or police district). CNN claims that there are 29,000 permits to carry in Phili. (again... rather slanted site) But it might be reasonable to assume that those 29,000 represent a a more narrow and likely more correct portion of the population studied. But... it's likely to be shaved down even quite a bit more.... considering the crime statistics for that area and that you can NOT obtain a CCW with a felony conviction. So just taking the population of Phili (approx 1.5mil) and dividing that by the number of CCW owners reflects that 2% of the Phili population has a CCW. But that's looking at a RANDOM assortment of those that have CCW's. Being honest with ourselves, we know that's not really valid in THIS population.


So... Skyrad, if you get the copy of the actual article, I would still LOVE to look at it. But... I don't think that this study represents the American population as a whole.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm sure you are a far more highly qualified researcher than the team who conducted this study

I spent so time looking around the site

I bet they are your students! Those that would make YOU proud

Do you like making yourself look foolish?

When looking at replying to your posts that has to be considered a ‘relative” type thing

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[AndyBoyd 0]

Quote

Quote

Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed

I totally agree. That's the reason you need to carry at least three guns on you at all times. I've carried guns all of my life, i've only had to "throw down" one time. Be aware of your situation at all times. Do not put yourself in the position of having one of your weapons taken from you. There are tactics where if this does happen and it's the only weapon you have on you to keep them from pulling the trigger, get a finger behind the trigger and trigger guard. Always carry mace with you if you are going somewhere that's questionable. There's a dozen ways to keep this from happening. Personally if someone threatens me and i concieve it as an immenent danger to my life, property or someone else's property or life, i'll shoot to kill from a distance to where my primary cannot be taken from me and answer questions later. Thus the old adage: "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6"

Just out of curiosity, what do you do for a living that puts you at what you seem to perceive is a constant state of danger? I do understand that some jobs are dangerous by nature, ie. cop in an urban area, combat infantry, etc.

If you are serious in your comment about being ready to shoot anyone you perceive as a threat, I recommend having a good criminal defense attorney on retainer. You are going to need one sooner or later.

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

OK.... short of actually spending $30 dollars for a one day view of that article (Other options are not reasonable options: American Journal of Public Health is not in my hospitals Ovid database, it's an EPub journal ahead of print so I can't order a hard copy, membership to AJPH is $195/year) I did some personal research into this article.

Examining the bias of the five authors (Branas CC, Richmond TS, Culhane DP, Ten Have TR, Wiebe DJ.)

Branas CC - VERY published, per pubmed, He has 50 published articles. However, according to F.I.C.A.P (The Firearm and Injury Center at Penn, 25 of those publications were as lead author from 2000-2007 regarding firearms violence. Now, while he might be VERY smart and what he concludes might be VERY valid points. One MUST acknowledge a bias here.

snip


.

STRONGLY disagree. Publishing many scholarly articles in one area is a typical research profile of an active researcher and is not indicative of bias, it is indicative of area of expertise.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

OK.... short of actually spending $30 dollars for a one day view of that article (Other options are not reasonable options: American Journal of Public Health is not in my hospitals Ovid database, it's an EPub journal ahead of print so I can't order a hard copy, membership to AJPH is $195/year) I did some personal research into this article.

Examining the bias of the five authors (Branas CC, Richmond TS, Culhane DP, Ten Have TR, Wiebe DJ.)

Branas CC - VERY published, per pubmed, He has 50 published articles. However, according to F.I.C.A.P (The Firearm and Injury Center at Penn, 25 of those publications were as lead author from 2000-2007 regarding firearms violence. Now, while he might be VERY smart and what he concludes might be VERY valid points. One MUST acknowledge a bias here.

snip


.

STRONGLY disagree. Publishing many scholarly articles in one area is a typical research profile of an active researcher and is not indicative of bias, it is indicative of area of expertise.

So by that statement, if I were to list 25 articles by some author written for the NRA... YOU will admit that that is indicative of an area of expertise for that author? You would disagree with the statement that he/she had bias?

[billvon 3,080]

>He has 50 published articles. However, according to F.I.C.A.P (The
>Firearm and Injury Center at Penn, 25 of those publications were as lead
>author from 2000-2007 regarding firearms violence. Now, while he might
>be VERY smart and what he concludes might be VERY valid points. One
>MUST acknowledge a bias here.

If most of the articles you published concerned prenatal care, would that be indicative of a strong bias for or against socialized prenatal care? Or would it be more indicative of your field of expertise?

[billvon 3,080]

>f I were to list 25 articles by some author written for the NRA.. . . .

But that's not quite what's happening, is it?

Again, if you published 50 articles on prenatal care in a medical journal, and 23 were cited by an anti-abortion group - would that mean you had a strong bias against legalized abortion?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The correlation here is that criminals tend to have guns, and they tend to shoot at each other. Being a criminal is the key, not having a gun.

Ok I see, so by inference a person with a gun is more likely to be a criminal - makes sense

This is about the most basic of logical failures one can make. If a implies b, does b imply a? No. 80-100 million Americans own guns.

However, given the limited number of CCW permits in Philly (or San Francisco for the matter), the answer might be yes - if you look at 100 guys carrying guns and aren't cops, the majority are likely to be criminals.

The rest of your post goes downhill.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

>f I were to list 25 articles by some author written for the NRA.. . . .

But that's not quite what's happening, is it?

Again, if you published 50 articles on prenatal care in a medical journal, and 23 were cited by an anti-abortion group - would that mean you had a strong bias against legalized abortion?

It could and I think that you would be a fool not to recognize a level of bias. Especially if I belonged to an anti-abortion group that used my studies on their website.

I didn't say that their research wasn't valid. Nor that this study was or wasn't biased... just that looking at the authors themselves, there appears to be a bias that I feel that they would need to overcome.