Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

If its mostly gang related or something like that then that statistic cant be applied to someone like me.

That seems to be the question here that hasn't been answered. I haven't seen the study, but that's the impression I'm getting. Sounds to me like a bunch of guys in the 'hood were the basis for the study.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

One of the many reasons that a CCW permit and the exercise of it is a very serious decision to make.

Everyone I personally know who knows about carrying says weapons retention is a really big deal. If you already have someone on top of you, it's a little late to be pulling your gun out.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Brandish before the assault is committed, and you're the one committing assault unlawfully.

Assault does not mean you've already been physically attacked. I think that's the point some are making here. In New York state, assault is defined as any verbal statement that threatens another person.

We are all engines of karma

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Assault does not mean you've already been physically attacked. I think that's the point some are making here.

Right, that's the point I was making. Assault is pretty much the initial step in a situation that may (or may not) escalate to violence. So, it's nearly impossible to know someone has "intent to commit assault" before assault is committed.

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

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

So, it's nearly impossible to know someone has "intent to commit assault" before assault is committed.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I sure you're familiar with the phrase "civil society".

We are all engines of karma

[kbordson 8]

EVERYBODY SIT DOWN. We need to finish Journal Club for today


Journal article being discussed:

Investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault

Charles C. Branas, University of Pennsylvania
Therese S. Richmond, University of Pennsylvania
Dennis P. Culhane, University of Pennsylvania
Thomas R. Ten Have, University of Pennsylvania
Douglas J. Wiebe, University of Pennsylvania

link to online copy of article

Billvon already stared this discussion.
Purpose and Hypothesis were reviewed.

Main findings were discussed:
-"individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P<.05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession". (per the abstract)

a p value of < .05 would indicate a 5% probability that the relationship is a fluke. <.05 is "typically" considered "borderline" statistically significant. A p of < .01 would be considered statistically significant and a p of <.005 or <.001 would be highly statistically significant.

But even with a 5% probability that this is a fluke, it still is important to examine.

With that, you need to consider the "n." (The study doesn't mention how they decided on the sample size or power calculations. It does mention that "only needed a subset of the remaining shootings to test it's hypotheses.")

This study had a initial population of 3485 shootings in the timeframe studied. Of this, 3202 were assaults. Accounting for exclusions (based on age, race and police officers that had been shot) there were 2073 potential case participants. Of these, one third were randomly (don't know how... but "randomly") selected. Thus giving 677 case participants. After all the information was obtained, it was established that of those 677, 5.92% were "packing heat." (refer to table 1 on page 3) Thus we had 40 assault victims that were carrying weapons. Not a HUGE "n" but... with a p value of <.05, it would have been nicer to have a larger sample than 40 victims.


Further analysis of the main findings

Association Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault (page 4)
-"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 )."


Discussion on confidence intervals (forgive the wiki link but it was the easiest to "read") Think of confidence intervals as the "degree of maybe" of the answer. So if they quote a "4.46 (95% CI = 1.16, 17.04) times more likely to be shot. What that means is if you make a graph

i-----------*----------------------------------l

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

That's your "real" answer. They THINK it's 4.46.... but they know with 95% certainty that it's between 1.16 and 17.04.

In this study, they chose a 95% confidence interval.

Now... if they had chosen a 99% CI, would it have crossed 1? (one being the standard risk of the "standard" population)

Overall, considering the p value and CI... the data is interesting, but not "impressive."



Conclusion (abstract and page 6)
"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. Funding support - the study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (grant RO1AA013119).

5. Study size:

Case participants:
3485 shootings in Philadelphia area during the timeframe
3202 assault cases
2073 included participants pool
677 randomly selected participants

Control
684 Random digit dialing matched for date/time, age, gender and race (NOT location)

Of those two groups:
Case participants had 5.92% gun possession (n = 40)
Control participants had 7.16% gun possession (n=49)

The comparisons were made between the two populations.


6. Overall design clearly articulated?
Yes. Notable excluded information. Power calculations for appropriate sample size. Mechanism of random selection of study participants.

(sidenote... complicated discussion of the 3 types of assault was unnecessary in the discussion of the framework and design)

7. Data collection methods?
Clear and appropriate

8. Study Limitations
-Self identified:
Control population was more unemployed.
Possibly not generalizable to nonurban areas.
Prior or regular training with firearms.
Reverse causation effects.


Confounding variables (situational factors included substance use, being outdoors, having others present and being in neighborhood surrounding that were impoverished or busy with illicit drug trafficking. individual factors included high risk occupation, limited education, or an arrest record) They state that they "controlled" for these, but fail to mention how.

-Non identified
Legal possession of the firearm. (this actually IS an important topic if this study is to be used for future policy)
**Brandishment to repel attack, thus no shots fired and no report initiated. (edited to add)




Overall.

This was not the study that I envisioned when I read the report that Skyrad posted. My opinion was biased by my experience doing studies in a hospital setting. This was not a records review nor an "easily done" study. It was well thought out ....

However...

the "n" was too low, the p was "borderline" statistical significant and the 95% CI was too broad (almost touching 1)

Overall.

I give this study a B minus. (*** and I grade nicely)

Good STARTING POINT for a real study.



Edit to correct the CI graph to show better representation of the confidence interval and to add the two ** comments

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

So, it's nearly impossible to know someone has "intent to commit assault" before assault is committed.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

Okay, feel free to answer the question that no one else has answered: What constitutes intent to assault?

Once someone acts in such a manner that I feel threatened by them, they have already committed assault. If I pull a gun before they commit assault, I have pulled the gun before I feel threatened by them.

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

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So, it's nearly impossible to know someone has "intent to commit assault" before assault is committed.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

Okay, feel free to answer the question that no one else has answered: What constitutes intent to assault?

Once someone acts in such a manner that I feel threatened by them, they have already committed assault. If I pull a gun before they commit assault, I have pulled the gun before I feel threatened by them.

Ok, since I'm the one who first used "Intent to Assault"-
I look at establishing "intent" as behavior that a reasonable person would interperet as an indicator that an assailant is about to engage in an assault.

Since threats can be considered assault, the establishment of intent becomes unneccessary for self defense to apply.

But not every threat is considered assault.

Nor can every threat be considered strong (or threatening) enough to justify self defense. Especially self defense involving deadly force.

So when can a threat that doesn't meet the threshold of assault meet the threshold of intent?

That would be a question for the lawyers and the jury to decide.

"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

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

So when can a threat that doesn't meet the threshold of assault meet the threshold of intent?

That would be a question for the lawyers and the jury to decide.

If one is going to carry a gun for self defense, it would behoove that person to know the answer before they put themselves in a position to be at the mercy of lawyers and a jury.

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

So when can a threat that doesn't meet the threshold of assault meet the threshold of intent?

That would be a question for the lawyers and the jury to decide.

If one is going to carry a gun for self defense, it would behoove that person to know the answer before they put themselves in a position to be at the mercy of lawyers and a jury.

Yes, you are correct. And, in most states, when applying for a CCW permit, the training you are required to have before gaining said permit does inform you of that answer.

For your own growth, do a little Google search and see if you can find what happened followed said classes in TX and FL back in the day when they started returning 2nd Amendment rights to their people.

You may be surprises at what you find

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

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

For your own growth, do a little Google search and see if you can find what happened followed said classes in TX and FL back in the day when they started returning 2nd Amendment rights to their people.

You may be surprises at what you find

One more time, in English, please?

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

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

So when can a threat that doesn't meet the threshold of assault meet the threshold of intent?

That would be a question for the lawyers and the jury to decide.

If one is going to carry a gun for self defense, it would behoove that person to know the answer before they put themselves in a position to be at the mercy of lawyers and a jury.

Yes it would be nice to have a cut and dried answer, but unfortunately, no two situations are exactly the same.
Nor is the behavior of the cops, prosecutors, courts or juries exactly the same or even all that predictable.

The short version of what you are asking is what is commonly known as the 5 points for use of deadly force in self defense.

1 Immediate. As in right now. Not left over from yesterday, or "I'm gonna go get my gun and come back"

2 Unavoidable. As in you can't go into that neighborhood past the gangbangers on purpose.
Some states took this far enough that you had to have no way to escape (even your own house) before it was unavoidable. This is where the "Castle Doctrine" came from.

3 Threat of Death or Great Bodily Harm. As in someone with a wet rolled up towel won't kill you.
Guns, knives, clubs and in certain circumstances a large, or skilled or multiple unarmed attackers (a small woman against a large, violent ex-boyfriend for example) will.

4 Someone You Can Defend. This is always yourself and your immediate family. Some states include servants (really!). Others may or may not include friends, aquaintances, employees, or strangers.

5 Someone You Can Defend Against. The only real example of this is that it is very hard to establish self defense against a cop.

State laws vary.

Court precedent changes over time.

If one is going to carry a gun for self defense, make damned sure there is no other choice before pulling it out.

Because doing so will put you at the mercy of the cops, prosecutors, judge and jury.

"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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

For your own growth, do a little Google search and see if you can find what happened followed said classes in TX and FL back in the day when they started returning 2nd Amendment rights to their people.

You may be surprises at what you find

One more time, in English, please?

Check it out.

Search maybe class drop out rates

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

[kbordson 8]

This post is from Marty:


"Someone asked why I would carry a gun, I said 'Because cops weigh too much.'"

[billvon 3,080]

And donuts are expensive.

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

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?

I don't believe the NRA publishes scholarly, peer reviewed articles.

However, if warpedskydiver were to publish an article on methods of limiting recoil in target rifles, I don't think he could be accused of bias unless he deliberately skewed his data. Warped IS very knowledgable about firearms and I'd expect his technical publications to reflect that.

...

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

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

Quote

>How about being listed on their web site as part of their "core team"?

What does that mean?

If you follow the link, you will see that it is an "Anti-Violence" group with a pretty strong bias against guns.

The home page has a graph showing the difference in assaults on police in carry permit "may issue" vs "shall issue" states.

Guess which one is higher?

I fail to see the correlation, especially when the permit holders (everywhere) have been shown to have a significantly lower rate of arrest or conviction (for all offenses) than the population as a whole.

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.

...

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

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

with the exception of Dr. Bordson, no expertise in statistical analysis.

Except for that, Mrs. Lincoln, how'd you enjoy the play?

This is ad hominem, Professor. Sure, it may take effort and a dose of logic to defeat their arguments. I suspect that you are qualified to provide such effort and logic.

Can you prove me correct? Or am I to be disappointed by you now?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[nigel99 574]

Quote

>>it goes against some people's stated beliefs that a gun will help
>>_prevent_ them from being shot in such a situation.

>How so?

If you are involved in an assault, and you have a gun, you are 5 times more likely to be shot than if you do not have a gun. That's the (narrow) conclusion of this study. As you (and others) have pointed out, it doesn't say anything _outside_ assaults, and there are many other ways to avoid them.

Actually I think the answer is pretty simple. Most criminals simply want to mug you/obtain your property with minimum of fuss and danger to themselves. So if you are unarmed you comply hand-over the goods and are left in peace. The instant you as the victim add a gun to the equation the criminal is now faced with potentially losing his life and therefore fight/flight takes over. Unfortunately criminals tend to have less regard for the wellbeing of others so the innocent person is further harmed. It goes to fairly fundamental principles of avoiding a fight de-escalate the situation where-ever possible, a gun doesn't tend to do that.

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

[nigel99 574]

Quote

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.

Point taken and fully understood. Perhaps I am naive as I just struggle to see the US ever falling into the same category as the countries mentioned.

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

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

Quote

with the exception of Dr. Bordson, no expertise in statistical analysis.

Except for that, Mrs. Lincoln, how'd you enjoy the play?

This is ad hominem, Professor. Sure, it may take effort and a dose of logic to defeat their arguments. I suspect that you are qualified to provide such effort and logic.

Can you prove me correct? Or am I to be disappointed by you now?

I don't need to prove you wrong. Given that the original article has already been peer reviewed (American Journal of Public Health is peer reviewed) the critics of the work now need to prove that the work is faulty, and they have NOT done that. Mostly we've just seen a lot of knee jerking.

To quote one critic "I haven't seen the study, but that's the impression I'm getting..." pretty much says it all.

If they don't know what they are doing or haven't read the article, their criticisms of the data and its conclusions are totally meaningless. So far only Dr. Bordson has made anything like a valid critique.

...

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

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

Nothin in the study indicates causality. Carying a gun coincides with an increased risk of being shot and killed.
I don't carry a gun because I live in Canada and no one else does either. If I lived in Texas I would probably get one.

That is true, but this is not the only study to indicate a correlation. For example:

American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 87, Issue 6 974-978, Copyright © 1997 by American Public Health Association

The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide.

P Cummings, T D Koepsell, D C Grossman, J Savarino and R S Thompson

Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center, Seattle, WA 98104-2499, USA.


OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether purchase of a handgun from a licensed dealer is associated with the risk of homicide or suicide and whether any association varies in relation to time since purchase. METHODS: A case-control study was done among the members of a large health maintenance organization. Case subjects were the 353 suicide victims and 117 homicide victims among the members from 1980 through 1992. Five control subjects were matched to each case subject on age, sex, and zip code of residence. Handgun purchase information was obtained from the Department of Licensing. RESULTS: The adjusted relative risk of suicide was 1.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4, 2.5) for persons with a history of family handgun purchase from a registered dealer. The adjusted relative risk for homicide, given a history of family handgun purchase, was 2.2 (95% CI = 1.3, 3.7). For both suicide and homicide, the elevated relative risks persisted for more than 5 years after the purchase. CONCLUSIONS: Legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death.

And there are very good (peer reviewed) data showing strong correlation between firearms fatality rates and % of households owning guns, both within the USA and between nations.

...

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

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Okay, feel free to answer the question that no one else has answered: What constitutes intent to assault?

Menacing behavior.

We are all engines of karma

[kbordson 8]

Quote

I don't need to prove you wrong.

[snip]

If they don't know what they are doing or haven't read the article, their criticisms of the data and its conclusions are totally meaningless.

[snip].

Honestly, not trying to goad you on.

But to say that someones opinion, interpretation or evaluation of the study is "totally meaningless" and to not be willing to defend that statement with a more critical statement than "because".... Are you not willing to look at the arguments offered by the opposing view and intelligently counter them with data?





And remember -
My initial opinion was guarded. (cuz bias DOES matter and numbers CAN lie)

I feel that I confirmed that opinion by actually looking at the data. I truly think that this study bordered on intellectual dishonesty and should NOT be used to make assumptions EITHER way.


"the "n" was too low, the p was "borderline" statistical significant and the 95% CI was too broad (almost touching 1)"

Good STARTING POINT for a real study.

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

Quote

I don't need to prove you wrong.

[snip]

If they don't know what they are doing or haven't read the article, their criticisms of the data and its conclusions are totally meaningless.

[snip].

Honestly, not trying to goad you on.

But to say that someones opinion, interpretation or evaluation of the study is "totally meaningless" and to not be willing to defend that statement with a more critical statement than "because".... Are you not willing to look at the arguments offered by the opposing view and intelligently counter them with data?

An OPINION that starts out "I haven't seen the article but..." has meaning in this discussion? You don't really believe that, do you?

You don't have any data, nor do I, nor does anyone else who posted in this thread. All we have are opinions about the data in the article and the conclusions drawn therefrom.

The ONLY opinion I've seen with any value has been yours.

Quote

Good STARTING POINT for a real study.

Indeed. But there have been MANY other studies that came to similar conclusions. I already cited one a few posts ago.

Here are some more:

www.upi.com/Health_News/2008/04/26/Gun_ownership_correlates_to_gun_deaths/UPI-65011209186884/


www.gunguys.com/?p=2793

www.livescience.com/strangenews/070112_gun_crimes.html

www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hphr/social-health-hazards/guns-and-suicide/index.html

And I know perfectly well that correlation does not imply causation. However, these correlations are NOT consistent with the hypothesis that buying, owning or carrying a gun makes you or your family safer and ARE consistent with the hypothesis that buying, owning or carrying a gun makes you and your family less safe.

Which provokes a predictable knee jerk response from those in this forum with an emotional attachment to their guns because they just KNOW in their gut that in their case, guns make them safer.

Edited to add: if you really believe the statistics are flawed and the conclusions are incorrect, you have the credentials to write a rebuttal to the journal editors and have it printed. Why don't you do that?

...

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