Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 7th, 2009, 09:33 AM   #1
K-Romulus
Suburban Commando
 
K-Romulus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NE MoCO
Posts: 2,223
Images: 1
"Study" shows carrying a gun = "4.5 times more likely to get shot"

A bit of counter-intel that I hadn't seen here at MD Shooters.

I first saw the news on this "study" last week. Here is a link to the media spin:
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news.../63225267.html

Quote:
Posted on Fri, Oct. 2, 2009

Think a gun protects you in a fight? Think again
(...)
If you have a gun during a fight, think twice about the protection it might offer.

Epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine yesterday announced the findings of a study about whether guns are protective or perilous during an assault.

It found that those possessing a gun in an assault situation were 4 1/2 times more likely to be shot than those not possessing one, according to the study's author, Charles C. Branas, associate professor of epidemiology.

It was released online this month in the American Journal of Public Health and will be printed in the November issue. (...)
and

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/63656382.html
Quote:
Posted on Wed, Oct. 7, 2009

Monica Yant Kinney: A downside to carrying a gun?
(...)
"I carry when I go into cities for work or out to dinner with my family," Misus told me, "anyplace where I'm concerned for my safety."

I thought of my phone friend a few days later when University of Pennsylvania researchers released the results of a study seeking evidence that having a gun protects the holder from peril.

To the contrary, the epidemiologists found in the first-of-its-kind investigation: People with a gun on them were actually 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those who were unarmed.(...)
The media spin is just getting started, so expect to see references in the future, esp. at any shall-issue bill hearings.

I found a free link to the study here (saves you paying $30 to AJPH): http://works.bepress.com/dennis_culhane/88/

Quote:
Abstract

Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.

Results. After adjustment, 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. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P<.05).

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.
******

Basically, the "conclusions" are total spin. Here are the facts as laid out in the study:

1) FACT: the study's data shows that out of the 677 people in the case group who were shot, 94&#37; of them DID NOT HAVE A GUN.

2) FACT: the "control group" for the study was randomly telephoned Philadelphians who were asked "Were you shot on or around [the exact same time that a case group shooting happened in Philadelphia]? Yes or no?"

3) FACT: the study then matched up the "control" to the "gun possession" subset of the case group to get the "4.5x" number.

There are some other details in the study like they matched the case/control by age, race, etc., but that makes no difference in helping support the "conclusion."

"Knowing is half the battle."

More complicated analysis of the study is found here:
http://volokh.com/2009/10/05/guns-di...in-an-assault/

More analysis here:
http://www.skatingonstilts.com/skati...it-sounds.html
K-Romulus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2009, 09:56 AM   #2
Half-cocked
Senior Half-Member
 
Half-cocked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 18,581
Did the study sample a population of law-abiding permit holders, or does it operate "backwards" by sampling a population of people who were shot, AFTER they were shot?

If the latter, the study is totally meaningless, because it's obvious that criminals with a propensity for violence who carry guns, and who frequently put themselves in high-risk situations where violent encounters are likely, get shot at a far higher rate than law-abiding citizens who carry a gun only for self-defense.


__________________


"One will soon realize who they really are deep inside after months of pitiful, lonely, and pathetic self pleasure." -PESP, on breaking up.
Half-cocked is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2009, 09:59 AM   #3
herr.baer
Midnight Rider
 
herr.baer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 3,522
Images: 22
Studies can show anything you want if you manipulate the data to show your point.


__________________
When the Lamb opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, "Come and see." I looked and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hell was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth. — Revelation 6:7-8

Maryland Rifle Club ~~http://www.associatedgunclubs.org/

NRA Mid-Range F-Class Master
IDPA CDP Marksman
herr.baer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2009, 10:08 AM   #4
MikeTF
Senior Member
 
MikeTF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Smith Mountain Lake, VA
Posts: 5,617
Images: 9
Figures never lie, but liars sure do figure! Key problems I see with the study: 1) Urban, specifically Philly, 2) No reference to crime rates in the study area, 3) very small sample size - probably not statistically representative, 4) a college/academic study outside of the field of criminology, 5) etc etc etc.
MikeTF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2009, 10:18 AM   #5
sigrug17
Member
 
sigrug17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Gaithersburg
Posts: 477
Thumbs down Agreed!

Quote:
Originally Posted by herr.baer View Post
Studies can show anything you want if you manipulate the data to show your point.



Totally agree. These studies are completely a FRAUD. Not scientific (meaningless control factors), and completely manipulated to show a certain result.


__________________
"Vengeance is mine declares the Lord, but I just want to be about the Lord's business!" --- R. Mullins ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
sigrug17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2009, 10:24 AM   #6
zombiehunter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,098
amazon.com
How to Lie with Statistics

Book. Go.
zombiehunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2009, 10:29 AM   #7
kohburn
Resident MacGyver
 
kohburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SOMD / Newbern NC
Posts: 5,907
Quote:
study seeking evidence that having a gun protects the holder from peril.

To the contrary, the epidemiologists found in the first-of-its-kind investigation: People with a gun on them were actually 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those who were unarmed
I think that is the part that bothers me the most - its presented as if they set out to prove one thing and "found" the other... when the reality is they carefuly manipulated the data to present something that I STILL can't figure out how they got.

Quote:
677 people in the case group who were shot, 94&#37; were unarmed
this says to me that if you are unarmed you are 16X MORE likely to get shot.


__________________
Quote:
cogito ergo sum armatus
kohburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2009, 10:55 AM   #8
alucard0822
For great Justice
 
alucard0822's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 10,766
Images: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by kohburn View Post
I think that is the part that bothers me the most - its presented as if they set out to prove one thing and "found" the other... when the reality is they carefuly manipulated the data to present something that I STILL can't figure out how they got.



this says to me that if you are unarmed you are 16X MORE likely to get shot.
yea, I took it the same way, you only have a few people that were shot during an assault, no telling if they were in the middle of a drug deal gone bad, gang fight, or even a law abiding citizen that stopped the crime, shot the assailant, and then got shot themselves. Like most brady funded BS "studies" it is easily debunked and countered, and serves the purpose of making them look like idiots to anyone that has any concept of scientific principals.


__________________
"Unfortunately, freedom allows sh*theads to get away with stuff. You always know the mark of a coward. A coward hides behind freedom. A brave person stands in front of freedom and defends it for others."
-Henry Rollins
alucard0822 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2009, 10:59 AM   #9
-Mil-Surp-Phreak-
Senior Member
 
-Mil-Surp-Phreak-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Rockville
Posts: 1,372
Quote:
There are 3 kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
One of my favorite quotes.


__________________
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, and too early to shoot the bastards." ~ Claire Wolfe, 101 Things To Do Until The Revolution
-Mil-Surp-Phreak- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2009, 11:11 AM   #10
fightinbluhen51
"Quack Pot Call Honker"
 
fightinbluhen51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombiehunter View Post
amazon.com
How to Lie with Statistics

Book. Go.
More Guns, Less Crime, The Bias Against Guns, GO!

Seriously, this is ridiculous, which can be evidence by just simply doing a study on PA permit holders by themselves. Seems that they probably didn't ask "are you a criminal or have you been convicted of a crime, charged with a crime, arrested, ect" to provide for the fact that criminals have a higher chance of actually being shot. And shot by perhaps, legal gun owners? Yes.


__________________

“It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, who keep on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men”-SAMUEL ADAMS, 1776
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
fightinbluhen51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2009, 11:16 AM   #11
novus collectus
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bowie
Posts: 17,339
Images: 4
What I also wonder is how many of those shot were inner city minors who could not legally have a gun in the first place, who are less likely to know how to use a gun for self defense, who likely have a low caliber gun that does not function, and who are likely to be looking for trouble if they are in a gang or dealing drugs.

Out of their 40 or so "randomly" found shot assault victims in the three year time span of 2003 to 2006, Clayton Cramer's self defesne blog has at least five successful defensive gun uses by lawful gun owners in the city of Philly itself in just the last six months of 2006 (Clayton Cramer's blog has only been recording defensive gun uses since about that time). This is just a sampling of what was reported in the news there and does not include all DGUs in Philly at that time, but even at five in six months that would be approximately 30 successful DGUs where the defender did not get shot in an assault, but what the study does not address is that of their 40 or so armed shooting victims, how many of them are alive and injured instead of dead because they were armed? It is possible if they did not have a gun there would be 40 more murders instead of simple assault victims.
novus collectus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2009, 11:27 AM   #12
JSW
Senior Member
 
JSW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Bryansville, Pa.
Posts: 1,651
Images: 1
so does that mean the city of Philadelphia will now disarm thier police so they can go back to the "city of brotherly love" and peace will reign throughout the land. Because as we all know if the police don't have guns then there will be no reason for the criminals to have them. After all it is the police presence that causes all that crime,right
JSW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2009, 11:29 AM   #13
danielw
Member
 
danielw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: middle river md
Posts: 216
Send a message via AIM to danielw
I can hit what I shoot at and I ain't afaid to defend my family or myself.
danielw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2009, 11:42 AM   #14
Brooksy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 84
For another good analysis of why this study is not helpful see here.
I think three of the four authors are Joyce Foundation sponsored, so it's pretty clear they had an agenda.
Brooksy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2009, 11:52 AM   #15
boricuamaximus
Senior Member
 
boricuamaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,036
Images: 6
Is this the one that they did interviewing thugs and gangsters? "They had a Glock Fohtay and still got shot in a driveby"

Thought this one was debunked or on the way to getting debunk a few weeks ago. I can go interview drug dealers that got shot and good chance they had a weapon on them.

Did they ask them if they were high or drinking?
Did they ask them if they had a holster? Or were they doing a mexican carry with the gun somewhere down there knees cause their pants are 8 sizes to big?


__________________
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Mass., at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
Quote:
Originally Posted by clandestine View Post
1911's dont suck especially if they are Nighthawk, Ed, Les, or Wilson.
boricuamaximus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2009, 11:55 AM   #16
Kashmir1008
MSI Executive Member
 
Kashmir1008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Carroll County
Posts: 1,798
it doesn't matter if you are a million times more likely to be shot while carrying a gun. It's a freaking right. What if a study shows you are 10 times more likely to get beat up for speaking your mind on a street corner? Do we ban public speaking? It's still your right to speak your mind.
Kashmir1008 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2009, 11:59 AM   #17
Boondock Saint
Returnedish Member
 
Boondock Saint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: White Marsh
Posts: 13,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kashmir1008 View Post
it doesn't matter if you are a million times more likely to be shot while carrying a gun. It's a freaking right. What if a study shows you are 10 times more likely to get beat up for speaking your mind on a street corner? Do we ban public speaking? It's still your right to speak your mind.
Comrade, I implore you, have a sip of Koolaid.
Boondock Saint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2009, 12:20 PM   #18
Luke 12:49
A Good Ole Boy
 
Luke 12:49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Culvert County
Posts: 1,766
Images: 14
Was there, at any point in time during the "experiment", a flag raised with the word; BULLSHIT embossed on it?


__________________
"I have come to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already blazing!" - Luke 12:49

ἐν τούτῳ νίκα

οὕτω ἀεί ἁρμόδιος τύραννος
Luke 12:49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2009, 04:55 PM   #19
K-Romulus
Suburban Commando
 
K-Romulus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NE MoCO
Posts: 2,223
Images: 1
More from Prof. Gary Kleck, the author of the "2.5 million defensive uses" study back in the mid-1990's. This is cut and pasted from this week's VCDL alert.

Quote:
Comments on forthcoming article by Branas et al., AJPH 2009

Gary Kleck, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State
University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1127 (850) 894-1628, gkleck@fsu.edu.
September 28, 2009.

The article by Branas and his colleagues (forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health) is the very epitome of junk science in the guns-and-violence field - poor quality research designed to arrive at an ideologically predetermined conclusion. Like all articles in on this topic published in the AJPH, it concludes that guns (no matter who possesses or uses them) invariably raise the risks of violence. This is not what competent research indicates, but it is certainly what the peculiar body of poor quality research appearing in medical and public health journals almost always concludes.

The authors conclude that "on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault" and that successful defensive gun uses are unlikely. In fact, 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. Instead, they made only the essentially irrelevant comparison between people who were shot in assaults with the rest of the population, noting whether gun possession was more common among the former than among the latter. Not surprisingly, after controlling for a handful of (badly chosen) control variables, they found that gun possession is more common among gunshot victims.

This pattern, however, says nothing about the effectiveness of defensive gun use, but rather is merely a reflection of the fact that the same factors that place people at greater risk of becoming assault victims also motivate many people to acquire, and in some cases carry away from home, guns for self-protection. In sum, this is what researchers refer to as a "spurious" association - a non-causal statistical pattern due to the influence of some third factor(s) on the purported cause (gun possession) and the effect (gunshot victimization). For example, being a drug dealer or member of a street gang puts one at much higher risk of being shot, but also makes it far more likely one will acquire a gun for protection.

Previous published research, however, has directly compared crime victims who used guns with victims who used other self-protective strategies (including doing nothing to resist), and reached precisely the opposite conclusions from those at which Branas et al. arrived (Kleck 1988; Kleck and DeLone 1993; Southwick 2000; Tark and Kleck 2004). Significantly, Branas et al. ignore all but one of these studies, and do not share with readers the main finding of the one study they do mention in passing (Kleck and DeLone 1993) - victims who resisted with guns were less likely to be injured that those who did not. Indeed, all published research to make such direct comparisons has yielded the same conclusion.

The most authoritative study (Tark and Kleck 2004) used data from large-scale surveys conducted by the federal government (the National Crime Victimization Survey), covering large samples that were representative of the entire U.S. population, compared 18 different self-protection victim strategies, and controlled for far more confounding variables than Branas et al. did. The results indicated that the probability of success in defensive uses of guns approaches 100&#37; - it is virtually unheard of for a crime victim to be injured after using a gun for self-protection. More specifically, only 2% of gun-wielding victims were injured after using a gun for self-protection (p. 878). On the rare occasions that gun-using victims were hurt, it was almost always injury that came first, followed by armed resistance - i.e., injury provoked previously reluctant victims into finally using their guns.

Strictly speaking, the results of Banas and his colleagues do not conflict with those of prior researchers; rather, they are simply irrelevant, and do not actually bear on the use of how effective defensive gun use is. The authors draw a non sequitur conclusion from irrelevant evidence. They find that gun shot victimization is more common among those who have guns, and conclude that gun possession raises one's risks of being shot. It is precisely as if medical researchers found that insulin use is more common among persons who suffer from diabetes than among those who are not diabetic (something that is most assuredly true), and concluded that insulin use raises one's risk of diabetes. This silly conclusions would certainly come as a surprise to medical researchers, and is obviously wrong. So is the conclusion drawn by Branas et al.

Cited Studies

Kleck, Gary
1988 "Crime control through the private use of armed force." Social Problems 35:1-21.

Kleck, Gary and Miriam A. Delone
1993 "Victim resistance and offender weapon effects in robbery." Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 9:55-81.

Southwick, Lawrence
2000 "Self-defense with guns." Journal of Criminal Justice 28: 351-370.

Tark, Jongyeon, and Gary Kleck. 2004. "Resisting Crime." Criminology 42:861-909.
K-Romulus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2009, 05:09 PM   #20
jonnyl
Senior Member
 
jonnyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Frederick
Posts: 5,018
I'm straight and all, but if I ever meet Gary Kleck I'm probably just going to give him a great big hug.


__________________
The loss of freedom, tyrrany, abuse, hunger would all have been easier to bear if not for the compulsion to call them freedom, justice, the good of the people...
-- Aleksander Wat, My Century

The ability to express yourself freely is so uniquely tied to the ability to defend yourself freely.

--Richard "Mack" Machowicz


_____________________________________________

NRA Member
MSI Member
SAF Member
jonnyl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2013, Maryland Shooters, LLC