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_update/63225267.html
and
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/63656382.html
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/
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% 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-d...possessed-them-from-being-shot-in-an-assault/
More analysis here:
http://www.skatingonstilts.com/skat...study-possibly-be-as-stupid-as-it-sounds.html
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_update/63225267.html
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
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/
******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% 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-d...possessed-them-from-being-shot-in-an-assault/
More analysis here:
http://www.skatingonstilts.com/skat...study-possibly-be-as-stupid-as-it-sounds.html