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

Penn Study Asks, Protection or Peril? Gun Possession of Questionable Value

Just wondered if this was running somewhere else and what others thought of the study. Anyone know of a NRA or other pro-2A statement debunking the study?

This was thrown at me today, and while the details (findings) appear skewed (or not, IDK), I don't have the will to look into the details, for yet another anti vs. pro conversation with this person. I'm guessing the NRA or someone will pick it a part sooner or later (with far less press then the study has received).

Let me know if there is another thread on this. Thank you.

Haven't seen the study or its results, myself. (It's $15 on the AJPH web site.) Got any clips from the study that might be worth kicking around?

Figures lie and liars figure...:hand1::banned:

Reading the article at link Thanis posted, I can probably agree with them that gun ownershp does give some a false sense of security. We've all known people who say they're prepared for an intruder, yet their gun's on the back of a shelf in the closet...or, unfortunately, CCWers whose only prep was obtaining the permit...or anyone in general who doesn't practice good SA or contingency planning / training.

Maybe.... guess if you look hard enough you can find ANY numbers to match your argument. I would prolly agree with Jumper.... lots of "armed" persons but either not trained, or not willing to take the shot.

On the one hand, as the wise man said, owning a guitar does not make one a musician; on the other hand, 72.9% of all statistics are made up on the spot (a higher percentage according to some studies).
I have to regard this study as flawed; first, because all studies with such results that I have read are put forth with an anti-gun agenda; and second, because in my experience, CCWers as a group put forth the effort to train and to practice and to maintain situational awareness, not just with the head-on-a-swivel at the grocery store, but in general, in pre-planning at home, behind the wheel, etc.
I could be wrong, of course.
After all, if I know so darn much, why haven't I made that million dollars and retired, eh?

Anyone can make up statistics, and make them fit to a particular agenda.

For example : I own a pocket knife. Owners of pocket knives are two times more likely to stab or injure themselves with one than those who don't.

This is just more Liberal trash to get people to surrender their rights through fear tactics.

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

What jumps out at me here is that the only criteria was "possession of a gun" by someone who had been "assaulted". 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. In fact, the study specifically references the urban environment in which the majority of the shootings occurred.

Junk science.

My 5-minute critique of this "research:"

* survey was limited to a densely populated city with the 11th highest rate of violent crime in the US (per 2007 numbers). Phoenix AZ has the same population but only half the rate of violent crime. Drawing conclusions about firearms use in a crime-ridden city and extrapolating it to the entire population is ludicrous. Why not look at the crime numbers from Omaha and extrapolate those to the rest of the country? Because there just wouldn't be a story... the statistics wouldn't fit the desired conclusion.

* the veracity of the people polled anonymously after a shooting has got to be highly suspect. There will likely be a lot of false bravado and wishful thinking expressed to a nameless pollster over the phone. Better to stop people on the street to get reliable data!

* a far more reliable poll would be of people known to own and carry a gun legally.

* "This is the same approach that epidemiologists have historically used..." I used scaffolding to do some painting on my house, therefore "I used the same approach as Michelangelo." What a red herring! Using a statistical approach which might even be questionable when applied to epidemiology is about as sensible as using weather forecasting techniques to pick winning lottery numbers.

Nothing but utter BS.
__________________

That 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? You also have to look at the author of the "study". he is a Phd in Epidemiology. He studies diseases. Remember when the CDC decided to get involved in the "epidemic" of gun violence back during the Clinton years? Sounds like they are trying to bring it up again, to try and do an end run by declaring gun ownership as a cause of violence.....

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....

David in FL and gasmitty pretty much nailed it. Basically, it says if you bring a gun to a gun fight someone will get shot. Well, DUH!!!!

Most if not all, the so called statics, came from drug and gang related shootings.

It's a well known and documented fact that law abiding citizens who defend themselves with a gun are far less likely to be shot or even injured.

Quote:

---

Figures lie and liars figure...

---

Good post.

My Dad used to say that and it is applicable in this case.

The "researchers" in this case took "data" from a "study" of street criminals in a crime ridden city and made it applicable to legitimate self defense shootings by law abiding citizens. How quaint.

Anytime the medical profession looks at the issue of guns, the "study" is going to be skewed towards the anti-gun view. The study was done by an epidemiologist. These are the same people who work at the CDC, and the CDC has made it clear exactly where they stand on guns.

My academic background is in social science research but I'm not an epidemiologist and they have their own methods, which are not familiar to me.

That said:
1) the control group makes no sense to me. Though my epi friend claims this is a legit epi control group. I'm sure I'm missing some logic here.

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.

2) a friend is supposed to send me the whole study. 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.

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.

4) Too many variables don't seem to be accounted for. A few off the top of my head:
- socioeconomic background (iow, what kind of neighborhood did the victim or the control group live in)
- was the gun legally owned or illegally owned
- victim's occupation (drug dealer? gang member? uh, yeah, those guys are more likely to be shot than a dentist or a receptionist)
- sounded like they looked at whether the assault victim OWNED a gun, but not whether they were ARMED
- etc

There is an old saying in research: Garbage In. Garbage Out.

This doesn't seem like a well-designed study. OTOH, 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.