gun carrier 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault - Page 3

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

This is a discussion on gun carrier 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Anti's also count things like suicides using a gun, and police shooting a perp. All they want are numbers. It wouldn't surprise me if they ...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 61

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

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array Guns and more's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Fl
    Posts
    2,391
    Anti's also count things like suicides using a gun, and police shooting a perp.
    All they want are numbers. It wouldn't surprise me if they count war casualties
    too.


  2. #32
    Member Array socal2310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Camarillo, CA
    Posts
    467
    I thought you guys might find this amusing: Why Skydivers Would Be Better Off Without Parachutes

    Ryan
    Those who will not govern their own behavior are slaves waiting for a master; one will surely find them.

  3. #33
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,387
    One of the follow-on comments at that link (above) suggests the study was funded by The Joyce Foundation, which has a long and glorious anti-gunner history and a relationship with Obama: click.

    I prefer an alternative view.

    Here is an article by Don Kates et al, written back in 1994 and published in the Tennessee Law Review. The article is highly dismissive and critical of such "studies" like U.Penn's apparent Joyce Foundation abomination. Link: Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence, or Pandemic of Propaganda?.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  4. #34
    Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    11,275
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoebe View Post
    To me, a sensible control group would be to look at a random survey of people who were assaulted and look at the differences in outcome between those who were and were not armed. But that's social sci research, not epidemiology.

    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.

    ...it is hard for me to believe that NIH would be creating junk science.

    If I can get my hands on the actual research, I will try to remember to report back.
    Phoebe, your observations and insights are both keen and welcome. I think this "study" is more correctly a social science project rather than an epidemiological one.

    I do note that the project was funded by the NIH, but apparently conducted by the Penn researchers and not NIH itself. It's unclear from the story if NIH had any technical oversight or review.

    I would love to hear more of your comments if you do manage to see the full research.
    Smitty
    NRA Endowment Member
    NROI Chief Range Officer

  5. #35
    Member Array torgo1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by Daddy Warcrimes View Post
    Those who own an inhaler are 4.5 times more likely to have an asthma attack.

    Correlation vs causation
    Heh, we have a winner.

    I could easily believe that the following statement is true:

    "Not counting police, people who carry guns are more likely to be criminals than not."

    Because I'm willing to bet that there's a whole bunch more people carrying illegally than legally. But it does not follow therefore that carrying a gun is a bad thing.

    Same thing here. This study would be interesting if they showed that possession of a gun by law abiding citizens acted as a crime magnet, or that resistance to assault was a net negative, but as far as I can tell, it does no such thing.

    Simply carrying a gun doesn't dump you into one uniform pool of people that puts you at the same risk as everyone else.

  6. #36
    Member Array diverdown247's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mo
    Posts
    245
    Take note how this study is worded. It does not cover if those who possessed guns were doing so legaly, in the commission of a crime, convicted Felons, race, etc. They left out the most vital information in the study.

    You can bet your paycheck that the bulk of those studied were people that were criminals carrying.

    Don't EVER take the word of a medical professional on violence statistics...they simply don't have the facts and the ones they do have are always skewed. Simply put, they need to stay in their lane.

  7. #37
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,362
    Thank you for the replies. I think one point is that without a gun, does the BG take you out with out shooting you.

    As for the other points, I think they were great. I used the following three.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daddy Warcrimes View Post
    Those who own an inhaler are 4.5 times more likely to have an asthma attack. Correlation vs causation
    I also went with how often people (non-LE) who carry a firearm because they may know they are headed into a dangerous situation (locksmiths, tow drivers, etc).

    Quote Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
    ...I see nothing to indicate that the subjects were lawful ccw holders rather than simple street thugs who, pretty much by definition are more likely to get themselves shot through the course of their daily activities...
    This was a great point. Let me push it onto the person I was talking with to get more details. The wording of the study is weak in regard to who the parties involved are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guns and more View Post
    Anti's also count things like suicides using a gun, and police shooting a perp. All they want are numbers. It wouldn't surprise me if they count war casualties
    too.
    I think the only thing I could agree the study might show is the importance of training and practice. Just because you have a firearm does not mean it is the right option when you are being assaulted.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  8. #38
    Ex Member Array 12Rounds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    This Planet Rocks !
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    I wonder how many more times likely the robber is to get shot.
    Exactly ! Way more than 4.5 for sure.

    Even if it were true, I'd rather take the elevated chances of being shot and have a means to shoot the other guy than not. I like my odds much better armed .


    I agree that this is better studied by Social Scientists, it's much more complicated than just counting holes in people .

  9. #39
    Member Array Random's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Clayton NC
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoebe View Post
    it is hard for me to believe that NIH would be creating junk science.
    I don't have that much faith in such organizations. It's quite easy for me to believe the NIH is creating junk science.

  10. #40
    Senior Member Array chrise2004's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southern IL
    Posts
    862
    interesting I'd like to see more collective data across the US.
    Glock 27,Hi-Point .380, S&W 3913, RIA 5" Tactical

    NRA Member/Supporter

    "Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem." - President Ronald Reagan

  11. #41
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,387
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoebe View Post
    3) 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.
    The one main area in which NIH, CDC and other health organizations can directly influence studies is (as you suggest, GIGO) via the quality of the data inputs.

    By dictating the variables that will be collected on an event, and by selecting only certain of those values to be present in search mechanisms ( such as the web site's search tool at CDC or NIH), they are, essentially, disregarding certain filtering in favor of others.

    For example, let a CDC researcher hypothetically refuse to allow filtering by Intentional vs Unintentional firearms discharges. Without the ability to filter strictly for unintentional discharges, one wouldn't be able to see just how paltry and small the figures are for truly accidental, unintended discharges that result in injury or death. Whereas, imagine if such filters did not exist. People with a disingenuous desire to warp policy in these areas might desire to claim how many people were offing themselves, when in reality, the filtering allows it to be shown that a ten-thousandth of a percent of people unintentionally shooting themselves or others, and that it's simply is insufficient for shaping policy such as the draconian and disastrous DC or Chicago ordinances.

    I, too, tend to value CDC, NIH and other sources of "raw" data more highly than many other sources that first wash and spin the data before it's presented.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  12. #42
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    3,916
    This study has the same flaw as the "family member being shot/killed is 93% higher by having a gun in the home" study. They are using a flawed hypothesis and study group. They should start with what they want to study - people who carry guns, not people who have been assaulted. Then ask those guns carriers if they have been assaulted since they started carrying. Then ask qualifiers such as high risk job involvement when assaulted. Then ask the result of the encounter.

  13. #43
    Member Array Murexway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    65
    I never was very good with math. But, if 6% of 677 folks who were shot had a gun in their possession when they got shot, to me that means that 94% of folks who were assaulted and shot didn't have the means to defend themselves against whoever decided to shoot them.

    I think I prefer the odds of being in the 6% group that got shot, rather than taking the 94% chance of getting plugged.

  14. #44
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    8,728
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    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 read John Lotts book 'More guns , Less crime,
    And he was very anti, before his research, and did a 180* after
    compiling all of the data for his research and book

    "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." Ted Nugent
    I would rather die with good men than hide with cowards
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

    M&Pc .357sig, 2340Sigpro .357sig

  15. #45
    VIP Member Array chiefjason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC
    Posts
    2,837
    From the NRA

    The "Junkiest" Junk Science That Taxpayers' Money Can Buy

    Friday, October 09, 2009

    Now, more than at any other time in anyone's memory, the federal government is in no position to waste taxpayer dollars on gun control advocacy "research." Nevertheless, the National Institutes of Health recently gave anti-gun researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine $639,586 to conduct a survey intended to prove that possessing a gun doesn't benefit assault victims.

    Criminologist Gary Kleck calls the resulting survey "the very epitome of junk science in the guns-and-violence field—poor quality research designed to arrive at an ideologically predetermined conclusion."

    Here's how it was done. The Pennsylvania researchers surveyed only those assault victims who were shot, limited in the last six months of the survey to victims who were fatally shot. It did not consider the far more numerous gun owners who used guns for self-defense successfully without being shot, nor crimes that were not even attempted because the criminals feared that prospective victims might be armed.

    The survey was further limited to residents of urban Philadelphia who, according to the research, "were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest," compared to the rest of the population. Victims who were shot in Philly, but who were not from Philly, were excluded too. The survey considered a victim to be "armed" even if his gun was "in a nearby vehicle, or in another place."

    As Kleck says, "none of the evidence presented by the authors actually has any relevance to the issue of the effectiveness of defensive gun use, for the simple reason that at no point do they ever compare crime victims who used guns defensively with victims who did not." Kleck notes that other published research "reached precisely the opposite conclusions" reached by the NIH-funded survey.

    What Kleck had in mind were the results of the federal government's annual National Crime Victimization Survey, covering tens of thousands of assaults. Kleck and others have reviewed those surveys and found that people who use guns to defend against assaults are less likely to be injured than people who use other means, or no means, of protection.

    NRA-ILA :: The "Junkiest" Junk Science That Taxpayers' Money Can Buy

    Kleck's research was begun out of his dislike of the anti spin on the gun research. Though he was not pro or anti, he just saw the research for what it was. Flawed. He and Lott are quite alike in their findings. Heard him speak in college. Great presentation.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. GOOD: Metro ATL carrier stops assault/robbery on third party
    By Moga in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 20th, 2011, 08:11 PM
  2. Gun owners are 4.5x more likely to be shot during an assault than non-GO...
    By Siafu in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 7th, 2009, 06:24 PM
  3. Bad guy gets shot 22 times - 17 COM with a .40 but still shoots a cop 4 times(merged)
    By razz in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: January 10th, 2009, 11:52 PM
  4. Assault Gun Ban...... includes single shot shotguns ?
    By Eagleks in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: November 25th, 2008, 01:48 AM
  5. How'd you feel being shot five times in one day?
    By fed_wif_a_sig in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: August 16th, 2006, 02:58 PM

Search tags for this page

are gun carrier less likely to get shot?
,

are gun carriers less likely to be assaulted

,
are gun carriers more likely to get shot
,
assault gun carrier
,
gun carrier more likely to be shot
,
gun carriers in omaha
,

gun carriers more likely to be shot

,
if you have a gun you are 4.5 times likely to get shot and 5.5 times likely to be shot
,
is a 5 shot revolver bad news
,
more likely to be shot with a gun by 4.4
,
statistically gun carriers get shot with their own gunn
,
study gun carrier less likely to be robbed
Click on a term to search for related topics.