October 6th, 2009 03:09 AM
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.
S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger
October 6th, 2009 05:05 AM
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?
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
self defense (A.O.J.).
How does disarming
the number of victims?
Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.
October 6th, 2009 06:26 AM
Figures lie and liars figure...
The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member[/B]
October 6th, 2009 06:32 AM
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.
GrassRoots GunRights SC member
Walther PPS .40 / KelTec P3AT
October 6th, 2009 07:18 AM
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.
Last edited by JD; October 6th, 2009 at 09:13 AM.
Reason: Will address via PM.
- Just one of the many services I provide!
Ever wonder why massacres never happen at a gun range??
You might find me dead in a ditch one day, but I'll be in a pile of brass.
- Stolen from Zebra64
October 6th, 2009 07:25 AM
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?
"Deine Papieren bitte?" or "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ !"
(Choose only one)
NRA Endowment Member
"I bark at no man's bid. I will never come and go, and fetch and carry, at the whistle of the great man in the White House no matter who he is." -- David Crockett
October 6th, 2009 07:49 AM
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.
"A Smith & Wesson always beats 4 aces!"
The Man Prayer. "Im a man, I can change, if I have to.....I guess!" ~ Red Green
October 6th, 2009 08:10 AM
I wonder how many more times likely the robber is to get shot.
October 6th, 2009 09:11 AM
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.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
October 6th, 2009 09:24 AM
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.
NRA Endowment Member
October 6th, 2009 09:30 AM
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....
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry
October 6th, 2009 09:35 AM
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.
October 6th, 2009 09:49 AM
Figures lie and liars figure...
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.
October 6th, 2009 10:05 AM
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.
October 6th, 2009 11:12 AM
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.
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
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.
By Moga in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: January 20th, 2011, 07:11 PM
By Siafu in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: October 7th, 2009, 05:24 PM
By razz in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: January 10th, 2009, 10:52 PM
By Eagleks in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: November 25th, 2008, 12:48 AM
By fed_wif_a_sig in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
Last Post: August 16th, 2006, 01:58 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
firearms carriers are 4.7 times more likely to be shot.
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
study gun carrier less likely to be robbed
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors