Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Can you remind me what the conclusion was again?

Summary:

"On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them
from being shot in an assault."

Longer conclusion:

"After we adjusted for numerous confounding
factors, gun possession by urban adults
was associated with a significantly increased
risk of being shot in an assault. On average,
guns did not seem to protect those who
possessed them from being shot in an assault."

Again, NO.

You were closer yesterday.

Summary: of those who were shot, possessing guns didn't appear to have any beneficial value.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

if a mugger tells me to give him my wallet and watch and cell phone or whatever, then I give it to him. Even if I'm carrying my gun. It's stuff. It can be replaced.

Which is exactly the point.

Every single day, virtually everywhere I go, I take with me the two most valuable things in my world. If someone tries to take them, you can damn well bet there's going to be a physical altercation. If producing a gun means I increase my chances of being shot in that altercation, but also increases my chances of defending them, then I'm going to be using a gun. I'm willing to get shot in that cause.

One of the rules of gunfighting: if you die, it better be because your opponent knocked you over the head with your "empty"gun. Like grandma said,"If you go down, you better be at full throttle and outta ammo".

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Yes, because sadly, those who are supporters of gun control have
>no problem with lies or propaganda that supports their viewpoint, so we
>can't expect them to criticize the article as well.

Sadly that's true in both directions. Look at the pro-gun's vehement defense of flawed studies showing something they prefer to believe.

Indeed, though I find greater fault with the gun control side. They are perfectly willing to use, and admit to, lies to further their cause. "Glocks are made of plastic so they can get past X ray machines." "Cop killer bullets" are designed to go through armor. Suicides provide the majority of the case numbers, but will be treated as violent crime. 23 yo kids are killed every day by guns. They're also happy to abuse the legal system to further their cause. "We don't care if there's any chance of success, it will still cost the other side money they don't have." And then there is the elitism - the top figures on the cause don't trust the people with guns, but they often trust themselves with them.

The gun side has problems with taking favorable numbers and trying to assert cause and effect when there is merely correlation. The NRA can't be given a pass for that. I think many of their followers are a bit ignorant on the science part - it's probably fair to say that their membership is slightly slanted towards the GW side.

[billvon 3,080]

>Again, NO.

Again, yes.

>Summary: of those who were shot, possessing guns didn't appear to
>have any beneficial value.

You are restating the conclusion.

To put it at a more personal level - if you ever find yourself shot in an assault, odds are much higher that you went into the situation with a gun than without one. At least during the study period in Cleveland.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

>Again, NO.

Again, yes.

>Summary: of those who were shot, possessing guns didn't appear to
>have any beneficial value.

You are restating the conclusion.

To put it at a more personal level - if you ever find yourself shot in an assault, odds are much higher that you went into the situation with a gun than without one. At least during the study period in Cleveland.

doncha mean Phili?

[billvon 3,080]

>Indeed, though I find greater fault with the gun control side. They are
>perfectly willing to use, and admit to, lies to further their cause.

Both sides do that. Witness the Lott study, where the author made up data to support his cause. (He later apologized.) Note all the conservatives that are making up lies about how Obama wants to "grab your guns" - to the extent that there has been lots of gun purchases and at least one shooting spree. Observe their attempts to stop research by the CDC because it might reveal something they don't want known. Look at all the people here who laud any pro-gun study and viciously attack the authors of any study that does not cite guns as a remedy for all sorts of crime.

What both extremists forget is that most people (outside of Speaker's Corner) are in the middle. They generally side with the Supreme Court, which has ruled time and time again that the Second Amendment is indeed a right possessed by all US citizens, and that most local/state/federal restrictions on how and where guns can be carried or purchased do not infringe upon it.

[billvon 3,080]

>doncha mean Phili?

Sorry, Philly.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You are restating the conclusion.

To put it at a more personal level - if you ever find yourself shot in an assault, odds are much higher that you went into the situation with a gun than without one. At least during the study period in Cleveland.

I certainly hope I went into it with a gun, otherwise I'd likely be dead. Most of the reason I got handguns a decade back, when the CA legislature was proposing new stupid laws every week, was so that if I ever had a situation in my life that called for self defense, I at least had an option, one without a 10 day wait.

It's vital to correctly restate the conclusion. I wouldn't be in the situation because I have a gun. I'd be in the situation for the reasons that lead me to have the gun in hand.

[billvon 3,080]

>I certainly hope I went into it with a gun, otherwise I'd likely be dead.

The study proves the opposite.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

>I certainly hope I went into it with a gun, otherwise I'd likely be dead.

The study proves the opposite.

Not "proves"


Suggests. (you can even say "strongly suggests" depending on your definition of "strongly")

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>I certainly hope I went into it with a gun, otherwise I'd likely be dead.

The study proves the opposite.

If you've read what I've said repeatedly in this thread, it does no such thing. You and they do not account for the self selection bias of the case studies, or the unavailable data. Since few carrying guns are doing so legally, they will not be reporting successful gun use to the authorities.

The most obvious counterproof is the rather large number of CCW holders in the country, in particular the large number in Texas and Florida. Law abiding citizens with guns do not have the same risk that criminals in Philly have.

BTW, I see no evidence that Lott admitted to making up data, just the sock puppet he made to support him (Mary Rosh). I do see that when others tried repeating his analysis with more complete data sets, the statistical significance dissolved away. Again, pro gunners trying too hard to find correlation. Not quite at the Arming America level of fraud.

[billvon 3,080]

> Since few carrying guns are doing so legally, they will not be
>reporting successful gun use to the authorities.

Right - and that's not an assault.

Like I said, IF YOU ARE SHOT DURING AN ASSAULT, odds are much greater that you went into it with a gun than without a gun. That is the one, narrow question the study answers, and which both sides are trying their best to misunderstand.

>I do see that when others tried repeating his analysis with more
>complete data sets, the statistical significance dissolved away. Again,
>pro gunners trying too hard to find correlation.

Agreed.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

The study doesn't say anything like that. It's a very narrow study with a very specific conclusion, and doesn't really support conclusions outside its scope.

Can you remind me what the conclusion was again?

If it wasn't the title of the thread, then the title of the thread pretty well shows how it could be misconstrued, and that, in practice, it _will_ be misconstrued and applied beyond it's premise. Of course I'm certain that's something the study authors never would have thought could happen in a million years.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,080]

>Not "proves"

The study does indeed prove that you are more likely (which is the word he used) to end up shot if you went into that assault with a gun. Again, assuming this was in Philly during the study period.

Or, if you prefer, the study strongly suggests that when you go into an assault, you are better off without a gun.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

>Not "proves"

The study does indeed prove that you are more likely (which is the word he used) to end up shot if you went into that assault with a gun. Again, assuming this was in Philly during the study period.

Or, if you prefer, the study strongly suggests that when you go into an assault, you are better off without a gun.

That's is NOT what he said....

Let me recap that part of the conversation.

Quote

>I certainly hope I went into it with a gun, otherwise I'd likely be dead.

The study proves the opposite.

The study does not in fact "prove" that he would likely be dead.

That is extending the conclusions well beyond the study parameters.

You could say there is a strong correlation between firearms possession and assault.

But... not to be too much of a snot... it does not PROVE that he would likely be dead.

[downwardspiral 0]

Do a quick google search and see how poorly this study is represented by antigunners.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[rwieder 0]

The Real World

"Gun-toting soccer mom found shot dead"

Read this story, and think about all of the ludicrous comments you people have been making. People that get shot & killed and have a weapon are generally not trained in situitional awareness. This lady was killed in her own home and i betcha a dollar to a doughnut her demise came about her being "Comfortable" in her own home, being complacent finally caused her demise, and worse. Please don't reaed just the story, read the green highlighted URL's in the article. That said, no need for further aguement or more BS comments & ignorant opinions.

-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

It's that people are misinterpreting them.

Including our elected political leaders?

Quote

Both groups are wrong.

One of the things that drives me nuts at this point in my life is no one seems to agree on "the numbers". Which numbers do we trust?

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

(You jump out of planes from 13k!!)

14k at the Ranch

Quote

As far as what to "believe"? Have a level of distrust for anything that is told to you. Numbers can and do lie. BUT... learn how to sift through some of that.

I have a masters in ChE. I can think for myself, even though the professor from North Chicago State doesn't think so.

We are all engines of karma

[downwardspiral 0]

Headline: Married people more likely to be shot by spouse than single people

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

Quote

Seem to me that EVERY person in this thread who criticizes the article has (a) a strong pro-gun bias, and (b) with the exception of Dr. Bordson, no expertise in statistical analysis.

Yes, because sadly, those who are supporters of gun control have no problem with lies or propaganda that supports their viewpoint, so we can't expect them to criticize the article as well.

You are getting more and more shrill. Calm down.

...

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

[rwieder 0]

Quote

Headline: Married people more likely to be shot by spouse than single people

Headline2: That said, no need for further aguement or more BS comments & ignorant opinions.

-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

Quote

>I certainly hope I went into it with a gun, otherwise I'd likely be dead.

The study proves the opposite.

Not "proves"


Suggests. (you can even say "strongly suggests" depending on your definition of "strongly")

It certainly does not suggest the reverse. Nor did the Harvard study. Nor did the Seattle study.

One wonders what the CDC would have found, had the gun lobby not managed to muzzle them (pun intended).

...

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

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

BTW, I see no evidence that Lott admitted to making up data, just the sock puppet he made to support him (Mary Rosh). .

...

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

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

Headline: Married people more likely to be shot by spouse than single people

Headline2: That said, no need for further aguement or more BS comments & ignorant opinions.

But I still have an hour and a half before I get off work. Oh wait! Webcast of the ducks game starts in 25 minutes. Sorry you'll have to put up with me til then.

www.FourWheelerHB.com