gun carrier 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault

[ccw9mm]

Figures lie and liars figure.

Yes, they can.

Those possessing gun in assault situation 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those not possessing one.

Right. What's the goal of the study, though? What's the purpose of the research? What questions were asked? What testing or survey methods were used? How did they "control" for variables, to ensure they didn't erroneously self-select particular types of people. A lot of fudging can go on there, by folks who know how to design "fouling" into the batter and how to "spin" the results. They've got at least one PhD on the study group, but that is meaningless by itself without knowing the parameters of the study.

Here's the thing, as RetSupt99 suggests. Statistics absolutely can be fouled, depending on what's done to foul them. It can be designed-in from the get-go as part of the study's purpose, to sway opinion or policy. Or, the goal can be "misconstrued."

For example: 4.5x, yes? But what's the goal in a violent rape or murder? To stop and survive the crime, right? So what, if you get shot during a murderous attempt on your life but end up successfully surviving and sending the felon straight to Hades? You survived. I mean, that's the goal, right? So, 4.5x more likely to get shot is very likely a GOOD thing, right? Perhaps so. The researchers don't touch any of that. The article simply summarizes the 4.5x stat, without validation or support of that statement. Big deal.

For example ...

Let's say you're unarmed and about to be raped. Are you likely to get shot by a firearm, if you meekly oblige the felon and yield to the rape? Not likely, no.

However, let's flip the coin, now. Let's say you ARE armed and fairly skilled in H2H and firearms use, and now the violent rapist comes calling, but this time you absolutely refuse him to negotiate with your life. Are you a bit more likely to be shot? Sure. So what?

In a pool of 5000 people who were raped (with half shot, half not), I'm sure you would clearly see that "tendency." But, being shot isn't the point. Stopping and surviving the crime are the point. What if those "4.5x" people all died, despite not having been shot at all. The study doesn't specify. Makes you wonder, hm?

So, you're 4.5x more likely to get shot if you have a firearm, but what if you're 23x more likely to halt the rape and survive the crime? Would you be willing, with odds of survival and "success" like that? I would. Damn straight.

So. "4.5 times more likely" is a good thing, or bad? Who's to say, just having a silly number dangling there like ripe fruit. The researches could specify, via being much more specific with the questions and the data such that these distinctions clearly show themselves. Otherwise, "4.5x" is meaningless, by itself. Thank you, RetSupt99, for reminding us of this.

That [study, and the "4.5x" claims"] flies in the face of what researchers like John Lott have come up with; and how many times have we all read about armed homeowners repelling home invaders?

Right. Lott and others look at the POINT of the exercise, not the "spin" purpose of the study in question. The point of the exercise is to stop the crime and survive it.

I think of this as more liberal crap intended to make everyone feel like a helpless victim, and therefore unable to do anything to protect yourself....

Yes. A bald-faced attempt to do exactly that. Pretty obviously so, if you ask me. (But then, nobody asked me, I guess. Tough! )

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Guns and more]

Anti gun studies do things like: Don't count events where the gun is not fired. Such as; you are approached by thugs who want your wallet. You pull your gun and they run away. In the statistics world, nothing happened. That gun didn't save you. They also count gang shootings and drug related shootings just the same as self defense shooting. So if both gang bangers have a gun and one gets shot, well then having a gun didn't prevent that one person from being shot.
Question everything, especially in todays less than honorable reporting.

[ghost tracker]

If you're looking for a particular outcome before you begin the study, the statistics to confirm that very outcome seem to...magically appear. I have to agree - Junk Science.

[ccw9mm]

Anti gun studies do things like: Don't count events where the gun is not fired.

Good point.

Lott and some others attempt to fill in the missing numbers in (what I feel is) an honorable way, though they themselves have an agenda as well.

Many anti-gunner studies I've seen simply ignore such "holes" in the stats, or design-in these missing elements from the start.

[Nova]

"As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot."

They were in possession of a gun - was the BG aware that they were in possession of a gun? Did that make a difference in his decision to shoot them? Would he have shot them anyway?

Undoubtedly, folks who are carrying may take risks that they would otherwise not take if they were not armed. It's always smart to act cool while you are armed and unarmed.

[Tye_Defender]

Lott and some others attempt to fill in the missing numbers in (what I feel is) an honorable way, though they themselves have an agenda as well.

I thought that I read somewhere that Lott was not rabidly pro-gun prior to his research. I agree that he probably has an agenda now, but I don't see any evidence that he had any pro-gun agenda prior to doing his studies.

[Janq]

Although I agree generally with GASmitty's general view as in in general.

IMHO to be specific in this specific reporting it is, IMHO, new member Phoebe who is most on track and I very much agree with.

It's difficult to evaluate research based on an article geared towards mass consumption...

But the conclusions drawn, seem to be overhyped based on the nature of the data...

I assume that NIH researchers are top notch. So, my assumption is that the conclusions in the article were overhyped and that the research article would reach more sensible conclusions...

BUT to play Devils Advocate lets say that the assertion as per the not so much news item but press release as against this study were completely and fully accurate toward the studys findings.
Further lest say that the statistical analysis was complete and took into account items as mentioned by GASmitty to be most full nation relevant and statistically accurate.

So what?
So what.

On the flip side of that same coin...
* We know and it has been well established that non-gun carriers who are assaulted have a 50% (!) likelihood to be assaulted as with enough physical harm to require medical attention as to some degree.
* We know that victims of rape, who are not armed, have a 100% likelihood of being physically assaulted as to a degree of requiring medical attention as to some degree.
* We know that victims of home invasion (not burglary which is different) have a greater than 50% likelihood to be assaulted as with enough harm to require medical attention as to some degree.

I could easily go on, but I won't except for this last fact...

Law enforcement officers as a population around the country carry firearms.
From street police to game wardens to animal law enforcement officers to judges and bailiffs to parole officers and even in some areas such as mine D.A.R.E. officers and parking law enforcement too are armed in some manner as well.
Guess what. They too as a population amongst themself rarely ever engage in shootings at all as on the whole even as it is their _job_ to be engaged in apprehending persons who are highly likely to want to shoot at them, so as to do enough harm to require medical attention to some degree (!).

I'll quote the press release...

What Penn researchers found was alarming - almost five Philadelphians were shot every day over the course of the study and about 1 of these 5 people died.

This makes no sense at all as related to the title and stated scope of their study.
Yeah okay almost 5 people were shot and one died, daily...on that of averages.
There is no mention what so ever of _WHO_ or _WHOM_ had a gun or guns plural (!).
Having been shot with a gun does not mean nor should be concluded that the person shot was armed (!).
A gun being involved in the assault of a person so as to do enough harm to require medical attention to some degree is not at all the same as; "The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun."

WT...?

And we know as fact that 4.5 law enforcement officer population members per day are _not_ being shot.

4.5 people shot
x
365 days
_______
1,642.5 people shot per year

Sixteen hundred LEOs are not shot per year, and again that is a population of people paid to carry a gun 100% of the time (not 6%) and to go head first into danger, and not jsut be run up on by surprise or drive by shooting as on some street corner.

Some supporting evidence to my assertion...

154 police officers killed in line of duty in 2004
Nearly half died in traffic-related accidents, one-third in shootings

...Seventy-two local, state and federal officers died from traffic-related accidents while 57, about one-third, died from shootings, the organizations said. A variety of causes led to the other deaths.

“Better driver training, safer automobiles and the increased use of bullet-resistant vests and less-lethal weapons are just some of the measures that must be taken to help prevent our officers from being killed while preserving public safety,” Craig W. Floyd, chairman of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, said in a statement.

The number of deaths this year was 6 percent higher than the 145 reported killed in 2003 but nearly equaled the 153 killed in 2002, according to the groups’ statistics.

In a six-year period, 1995-2000, officer deaths averaged 159 per year. In 2001, the year of the Sept. 11 attacks, 234 officers died in the line of duty.

This year, the four most populous states led the nation with officer fatalities in double digits: California with 15, Texas with 14, Florida with 12, and New York with 11.

Eight of the 154 officers who died across the nation were women, the organizations said. Eight federal officers were killed in the line of duty in 2004, compared with just one the previous year.

Source - 154 police officers killed in line of duty in 2004 - U.S. news- msnbc.com

Without having read the actual study and taking at face value everything stated in this press release as being assumed to be factual in _reporting_ as against that of the study in whole.
I find it difficult to take this study with any degree of seriousness simply because it does not make any sense.

Lastly even if it did, what would you rather prefer?
To be 4.5 times LESS likely to be shot (!), but to expose yourself to a 50% or greater INCREASED chance of being shot in the event of finding yourself being involved in an assault of some manner?
Or...
To be 4.5 times MORE likely to be shot, but to expose yourself to a 50% or LESSER chance of being shot, or the only person shot, as in the event of finding yourself being involved in an assault of some manner?

For me the choice is clear.

Source - "He threatened her life, and she defended herself"

For others and those who may base their choices as on this 'study', not so much.

- Janq does not live in and has never been to nor have plan to visit Philadelphia in specific

"Do the math. 2 badguys 1 assualt. it's 100% sure that if they're both armed then 100% of the time, no matter who won the "fight" that a weapon meant for defense failed." - ImChad

[ImChad]

"people with a gun "


People with a gun. Hilarious. Are we talking about gang bangers included? Yes, they have guns, they get in gun fights. are they not "people with a gun". sigh.


I read this crapfest of an article. i say crapfest, because I have examples.

A.) To identify the controls, <b>trained phone canvassers</b> called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting.

The very motive for a study like this is known up front. those kids, yes college kids get paid via numbers, not blind study. They're not asking "were you legally in possession of a firearm" they're saying "did you have a gun"/ fail.

B.) Almost five Philadelphians were shot every day over the course of the study and about 1 of these 5 people died. The research team concluded that, although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the chances of success are low.

I live outside of Indy. The "crime rate" is very high for over all data. When you look at our crime map though, 50% or more is in an area no more than 6 blocks by 2 blocks long. drug dealing, prostitution, murders, rape and so on in this little area. They have shoot outs between rival gangs every few years. Philadelphia is no exception. We're not talking about joe blow on his way to the store getting car jacked, we're talking about bad guy A and bad guy B slinging drugs and shooting each other. Bad guy B gets shot and then called by a "control group" and suddenly, he's a victim trying to protect himself and failed with a gun handy"


Do the math. 2 badguys 1 assualt. it's 100% sure that if they're both armed then 100% of the time, no matter who won the "fight" that a weapon meant for defense failed.


Long story short, this study is flawed in every way shape and form and the data is hilarious if you read how they obtained it.

[DaveH]

This reminds me of the study done by some college years ago that linked the type of music played in a restaurant to violence w/o out looking at any other variables.


Coloration is not causative.

[Daddy Warcrimes]

Those who own an inhaler are 4.5 times more likely to have an asthma attack.

Correlation vs causation

[KralBlbec]

I wonder how many more times likely the robber is to get shot.

Didn't ya notice? They counted those in as the gun owners who get shot category.

Seriously, I wonder if they did count criminals shot by the police...

[jumpwing]

Does this pool of "gun owners" include law enforcement officers by any chance? You know, those folks who make a career of putting themselves into dangerous situations on our behalf?

[ccw9mm]

I thought that I read somewhere that Lott was not rabidly pro-gun prior to his research. I agree that he probably has an agenda now, but I don't see any evidence that he had any pro-gun agenda prior to doing his studies.

Lott himself has said this, in interviews. The research and what the reality showed dictated the non-realistic way of seeing things simply wasn't supportable any longer.

[Rustynuts]

I wonder how many more times the ROBBER will be shot mugging someone with a CCW vs. a robber and a person with no gun?

I'm thinking close to zero BG's shot in the no gun scenario (unless the good guy somehow disarms the BG) and a decent number when dealing with a CCW. So ANY number divided by close to zero = INFINITY!

[Janq]

Lott himself has said this, in interviews. The research and what the reality showed dictated the non-realistic way of seeing things simply wasn't supportable any longer.

I was the exact same way, thanks to upbringing and witness of what I'd long thought were guns killing people.

Not until I was challenged, by a 'gun nut' (so I'd then thought) to research it, and research is a gift of mine, did I come to realize by way of facts & figures and _education_ (!)that fact is guns do not kill people.
People kill people, and sometimes they use guns rather than knives, and bats, and chains, or fists etc.

The rest is a Lott of parallels.

- Janq