Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed

[billvon 3,088]

>If you follow the link, you will see that it is an "Anti-Violence" group . . .

Right, right. What does "core team" mean? Directors? Policy setters? Names they put on a website to give them credibility?

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Right, right. What does "core team" mean? Directors? Policy setters? Names they put on a website to give them credibility?

I'm sure it means "random people we have no relation to and who's views we in no way share."

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

They're lobbyist. I don't really like them on EITHER side

Do you have a problem with an individual writing his Congressman and/or Senators on his/her own behalf?

No.

I think the Congressman/woman and Representative SHOULD know what his/her constituents think.

But major lobbying efforts are not that.

An individual writing his/her Congressmen is an example of lobbying, making that individual a lobbyist, something you previously stated you don't really like.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[nigel99 584]

Quote

Quote

You'll never change my belief that it is misguided to think that guns work for self-defense and I will never change yours that they do
But for the sake of argument how many people that you know have been shot at, or shot at humans (not hunting & excluding Cheney) - if you do have they had military training?

For the sake of argument, what relation do either of those things have to do with the 2nd Amendment?

Nothing at all. Guns are fun and I enjoy them and I would happily own a gun and hunt/target shoot.

JR has previously explained here about 2nd amendment providing a check and balance against the government going against the people, and since it is not a subject that I really care much about, his opinion is the most strongly voiced that I have experienced in regards to guns in the US (I don't live there). I also think it is ever so slightly Fantasy land to believe that the "common people" could rise up against the US government and by extension, as the president is head of the armed forces against your own military and win.

I see gun ownership falling into a couple of categories (excluding military):
1) Sport
2) Hunting
3) Self Defense
4) 2nd Amendment (it's my right) so I'll have one
5) Criminals to commit crime

I understand the first 2, disagree with the 3rd and don't understand the 4th but don't disagree with it either. Number 5 is human nature at it's worst and not a reflection on guns as criminals will use anything at their disposal to commit a crime.

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

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

I also think it is ever so slightly Fantasy land to believe that the "common people" could rise up against the US government...

Surely. As the Viet Cong can attest, there is no way that a grassroots uprising could ever survive a violent confrontation with the world's most powerful military, let alone force it to leave them alone. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan are also obviously powerless in the face of the mighty US military, and have clearly surrendered their right to self-determination and bowed down before the guns of the United States in abject submission.

Since they obviously have so many fewer resources than the people of Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq, the US people could definitely never do anything like that.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

They're lobbyist. I don't really like them on EITHER side

Do you have a problem with an individual writing his Congressman and/or Senators on his/her own behalf?

No.

I think the Congressman/woman and Representative SHOULD know what his/her constituents think.

But major lobbying efforts are not that.

An individual writing his/her Congressmen is an example of lobbying, making that individual a lobbyist, something you previously stated you don't really like.

I want the politicians to know the people that they represent.

Lobbyist are both a sub culture of that population and a also a larger group of those NOT represented by that politician.

For example:

Tammy Baldwin is a Representative in the U.S. House of Representatives for WI. She represents the PEOPLE of Wisconsin. Those that want firearms rights and those that don't.
The NRA contains a SUBGROUP of that population
The NRA ALSO is a MUCH LARGER demographic that also contains NON-Wisconsin residents.

Representative Baldwin should know HER constituents.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

They're lobbyist. I don't really like them on EITHER side

Do you have a problem with an individual writing his Congressman and/or Senators on his/her own behalf?

No.

I think the Congressman/woman and Representative SHOULD know what his/her constituents think.

But major lobbying efforts are not that.

An individual writing his/her Congressmen is an example of lobbying, making that individual a lobbyist, something you previously stated you don't really like.

I want the politicians to know the people that they represent.

Lobbyist are both a sub culture of that population and a also a larger group of those NOT represented by that politician.

For example:

Tammy Baldwin is a Representative in the U.S. House of Representatives for WI. She represents the PEOPLE of Wisconsin. Those that want firearms rights and those that don't.
The NRA contains a SUBGROUP of that population
The NRA ALSO is a MUCH LARGER demographic that also contains NON-Wisconsin residents.

Representative Baldwin should know HER constituents.

There is nothing that stops anyone from lobbying a Congressperson who does not directly represent that person or that person's state. In fact, it might be a useful thing to do. For example, if I live in Florida, but no one from Florida is on a Congressional committee that deals with an issue that is important to me, it behooves me to contact the members of that committee with my lobbying efforts even though they are not from my state.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,088]

>If they do, please post it (or if that is ... less than ethical... then review it
>and answer some questions for me)

Probably not too cool to copy the entire report but I will try to excerpt it:


>1. Why was the study done?

To answer this question:

"Although scholars and the public agree
that the roughly 100000 shootings each year in
the United States are a clear threat to health,
uncertainty remains as to whether civilians
armed with guns are, on average, protecting or
endangering themselves from such shootings."

(Also basically the hypothesis)

>3. What were the main findings of the study?

"After we adjusted for confounding factors,
individuals who were in possession of a gun
were 4.46 (95% confidence interval [CI]=1.16,
17.04) times more likely to be shot in an assault
than those not in possession. Individuals who
were in possession of a gun were also 4.23
(95% CI=1.19, 15.13) times more likely to be
fatally shot in an assault. In assaults where the
victim had at least some chance to resist,
individuals who were in possession of a gun
were 5.45 (95% CI=1.01, 29.92) times more
likely to be shot.

When we only considered independent
variables that most strongly affected our
models, smaller but correspondingly significant
adjusted odds ratios were noted. In these reduced
models, individuals who were in possession
of a gun were 2.55 (95% CI=1.00,
6.58) times more likely to be shot in an assault
than those not in possession. Individuals who
were in possession of a gun were also 3.54
(95% CI=1.18, 10.58) times more likely to be
fatally shot in an assault. In assaults where the
victim had at least some chance to resist,
individuals who were in possession of a gun
were 2.92 (95% CI=1.01, 8.42) times more
likely to be shot (Table 2 )."

"On average, guns did not protect those who
possessed them from being shot in an assault.
Although successful defensive gun uses are
possible and do occur each year (33,57) the
probability of success may be low for civilian gun
users in urban areas."

>4. Was this study funded by pharmaceutical company(s)?

Don't know.

>5. How large was the study?

All gun assaults:
Case participants = 677 control group = 684

Fatal gun assaults: 163/166

>How were subjects selected?

During the study period, police records were used to discover gunshot assault cases. These were reduced (randomly) by 1/3. Each subject was randomly paired with a control subject chosen at random who was not involved in any shootings. Self inflicted, unintentional and police-related shootings were excluded, as were crimes involving people under 21 years old and involving nonresidents.

>6. Was the overall design of the study clearly articulated and
>appropriate for the hypotheses?

A subjective question, but it was pretty well articulated.

>Was there a control group?

Yes.

>7. Were the data collection methods clear and appropriate?

They were pretty straightforward, so yes.

>8. Was the data analysis clearly explained and appropriate?

Pretty subjective.

>9. What were the main findings?

See above.

[kbordson 8]

Thanks! brb.

[TomAiello 26]

Any word on whether the subjects were examined to determine whether they were legally in possession of a firearm (i.e. not felons, and separately possessing a CCW permit)?

Was there any examination of the subjects for criminal record (unrelated to their possession of the firearm)?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Any word on whether the subjects were examined to determine whether they were legally in possession of a firearm (i.e. not felons, and separately possessing a CCW permit)?

I fail to see how that is even relevant when studying the effects of carrying guns and not the effects of having a CCW permit.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

Any word on whether the subjects were examined to determine whether they were legally in possession of a firearm (i.e. not felons, and separately possessing a CCW permit)?

I fail to see how that is even relevant when studying the effects of carrying guns and not the effects of having a CCW permit.

The eventual policy decisions which could be based on the data are about gun laws. As such, it's useful to subtract out data that pertains to people who would ignore the laws anyway, since those policy decisions will not actually change the behavior of those individuals.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The eventual policy decisions which could be based on the data are about gun laws. As such, it's useful to subtract out data that pertains to people who would ignore the laws anyway, since those policy decisions will not actually change the behavior of those individuals.

It's useful to only draw proper conclusions from the data. If one wants to analyze the effects of CCW permits, then a study should be designed for that purpose.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

But for the sake of argument how many people that you know have been shot at, or shot at humans (not hunting & excluding Cheney) - if you do have they had military training?

Not sure I can think of any. I don't live in the parts of town where drug trafficking is rampant. My guns sit idle for long stretches at a time. Mind you, lacking kids in the house, I don't have to worry about where they are or if they're loaded, but I have virtually no cause for concern at this time. Should that change in the future, I have tools to assist.

Quote

I also think it is ever so slightly Fantasy land to believe that the "common people" could rise up against the US government and by extension, as the president is head of the armed forces against your own military and win.

There are so many cases examples showing why this is hardly fantasy.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Any word on whether the subjects were examined to determine whether they were legally in possession of a firearm (i.e. not felons, and separately possessing a CCW permit)?

I fail to see how that is even relevant when studying the effects of carrying guns and not the effects of having a CCW permit.

Since the obvious counterclaim to their conclusion is that these are criminals getting shot at, it seems like a useful bit of information.

It's interesting that they choose to exclude all cases involving victims under 21 (that is, those who are not legally able to possess handguns). I wonder if that exclusion had any bearing on results, as well as what their motivations were in that decision.

And since the study is based on reported incidents, it's obvious that it undercounts, either accidentally or deliberately, a significant percentage of the events where the 'victim' successfully uses his gun to dispel the attackers.

Again to conclude - junk social 'science.'

[Ron 10]

Quote

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."

What I don't see is any correlation on how many people that were NOT in the study were carrying a gun.

They compared the number of people SHOT and took how many had a gun on them, then compared them to the ENTIRE population. What is missing is how many people carried and were NOT shot.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,088]

>Any word on whether the subjects were examined to determine
>whether they were legally in possession of a firearm (i.e. not felons, and
>separately possessing a CCW permit)?

Not directly, but only 1.5% of the shootings considered by the study were "legal interventions" (i.e. no crime was committed by the gun owner.) One can assume that those involved a legal use of a legally carried gun to stop a potential crime. These (as well as self inflicted wounds, unintentional discharges etc) were excluded from the study, as the study only considered assaults that fit the legal definition of assault.

That 1.5% was not broken down, nor were there separate categories for people legally in possession of guns who used them illegally. These were included in the study.

>Was there any examination of the subjects for criminal record (unrelated
>to their possession of the firearm)?

Yes. On average 53% of gun assaults involved someone with prior arrests. In the control group, 36% had prior arrests.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Since the obvious counterclaim to their conclusion is that these are criminals getting shot at, it seems like a useful bit of information.

Or, a lack of training with the guns contributed to the shootings/deaths. There are lots of possible explanations. That the scope of this particular study doesn't include every single explanation for the statistical results doesn't make the study invalid or meaningless.

Quote

Again to conclude - junk social 'science.'

I'm sure lots of people will jump to that same conclusion upon finding that the study doesn't draw conclusions that coincide with their own personal beliefs. That doesn't make them right.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Ok, so 98.5% of the shooting victims were criminals.

Do I understand that correctly??

And this lobby group wants to use this to influence laws?

Do they understand the concept that criminals, by definition, do not obey the law?

"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

[billvon 3,088]

>What I don't see is any correlation on how many people that were NOT
>in the study were carrying a gun.

The percentages were approximately the same. (7.7% in assault group, 7.5% in control group.)

>What is missing is how many people carried and were NOT shot.

As is the number of people who were NOT carrying and were NOT shot.

This study attempted to answer a very narrow question - the relationship between being injured with a gun in an assault and an individual’s possession of a gun at the time. In that specific situation, you are much more likely to be injured or killed if you have a gun.

There are many more questions than that. Are CCW holders more or less likely to be killed in those situations? Are they better at avoiding those situations to begin with? (insert your own questions here.) This study does not attempt to answer those additional questions.

[billvon 3,088]

>Ok, so 98.5% of the shooting victims were criminals.

No. 98.5% of the shooting victims during that period were involved in something that was not a legal intervention. For example, if you were shot by a mugger, you may be completely innocent of any crime - but that was not a legal intervention by a legal carrier of a weapon, so it's an assault.

In addition, ALL those were excluded. So 100% of the people included in the study were involved in an assault - and a legal intervention is not an assault.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

This study attempted to answer a very narrow question - the relationship between being injured with a gun in an assault and an individual’s possession of a gun at the time. In that specific situation, you are much more likely to be injured or killed if you have a gun.

It suggests that conclusion, but doesn't prove it. Yet again, these people had guns for a reason. Without the gun, they still get shot at and killed. Their conclusions also suggest that the guns were not useful for defense, but since it only counts recorded incidents, that has to be questioned as well.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Again to conclude - junk social 'science.'

I'm sure lots of people will jump to that same conclusion upon finding that the study doesn't draw conclusions that coincide with their own personal beliefs. That doesn't make them right.

I've covered why it's junk. Didn't see any replies from you on that.

[Ron 10]

Quote

The percentages were approximately the same. (7.7% in assault group, 7.5% in control group.)

The percentages of people that were shot that carried vs the number that were shot that didn't carry is not going to show valid data.

You would have to compare the percent that carried and *were shot* to the percentage that *carried and were not shot*.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Again to conclude - junk social 'science.'

I'm sure lots of people will jump to that same conclusion upon finding that the study doesn't draw conclusions that coincide with their own personal beliefs. That doesn't make them right.

I've covered why it's junk. Didn't see any replies from you on that.

Sorry. I wanted to see how many people would make such a claim without having actually seen the study. There certainly wasn't a shortage of such people!

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!