"4.5 times" debuts in MD: "Armed and Still In Danger"

October 19, 2009
Armed and still in danger

Debates over gun laws too often are based on the assumption that having a gun in one's possession deters crime. A recent public health study reveals the fallacy of that assumption: Epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that people with a gun are 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault.

Researchers interviewed more than 600 shooting victims in Philadelphia from 2003 and 2006 and compared their experience with a control group, mostly people drawn randomly from the neighborhoods where the shootings took place. Pro-gun groups may not be happy with its conclusions, but they can't claim bias: The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health during the Bush administration, not by organizations favoring gun control.

As the study's authors note, the results should cause urban residents everywhere to rethink their assumptions about gun possession. Certainly, there are people who successfully defend themselves with a gun, but the chances of doing so are slim. On the other hand, how many civilian shooting victims were walking around with a false sense of security because they had a gun in their pocket, holster, waistband or car?

The findings are a bit reminiscent of earlier studies that point out the dangers of having a gun in the home. But as the researchers also conclude, this is a field that ought to be more closely examined. That's something that hasn't always been possible because of federal restrictions on the funding of studies that might be used to promote gun control legislation.

Click to expand...

HoCoShooter said:

The University's school of medicine interviewed 595 gangsters and 5 law abiding citizens in Phiily and determined that shootings are expensive to hospitals.

and bullcrap:
Pro-gun groups may not be happy with its conclusions, but they can't claim bias: The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health during the Bush administration, not by organizations favoring gun control.

Click to expand...

U.S. quietly begins to study gun safety
Originally published 04:45 a.m., October 19, 2009, updated 01:12 p.m., October 19, 2009
Jim McElhatton

More than a decade after Congress cut funding for firearms research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), another federal health agency has been spending millions of dollars to study such topics as whether teenagers who carry firearms run a different risk of getting shot compared with suffering other sorts of injuries.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) also has been financing research to investigate whether having many liquor stores in a neighborhood puts people at greater risk of getting shot.

Such studies are coming under sharp scrutiny by Republican lawmakers who question whether the money could be better spent on biomedical research at a time of increasing competition for NIH funding. They're also leery of NIH research relating to firearms in general, recalling how 13 years ago the House voted to cut CDC funding when critics complained that the agency was trying to win public support for gun control.

"It's almost as if someone's been looking for a way to get this study done ever since the Centers for Disease Control was banned from doing it 10 years ago," Rep. Joe L. Barton, Texas Republican, said of one of the NIH studies. "But it doesn't make any more sense now than it did then."

The NIH, which administers more than $30 billion in taxpayer funds for medical research, defended the grants.

"Gun related violence is a public health problem - it diverts considerable health care resources away from other problems and, therefore, is of interest to NIH," Don Ralbovsky, NIH spokesman, wrote in an e-mail responding to questions about the grants.

"These particular grants do not address gun control; rather they deal with the surrounding web of circumstances involved in many violent crimes, especially how alcohol policy may reduce the public health burden from gun-related injury and death," he said. (....)

Click to expand...

Felons learning hard lesssons
By The News Tribune

Felonious behavior is becoming more dangerous, if two recent incidents are any indication.

During a home invasion on Oct. 5, one of the intruders was shot and killed by one of the occupants of the mobile home.

And an armed assailant is recovering from wounds after he was shot Oct. 13 by one of the people he was attempting to herd into a building housing law offices on East Capitol Avenue.

In the first case, the weapon was kept in the home, which always has been allowed to defend people and property.

In the second incident, the assailant was shot by someone who qualifies under the conceal and carry law.

Sheriff Greg White is a proponent of the conceal and carry law, passed by lawmakers in 2003 after Missouri voters rejected a similar law in 1999.

The law requires people to attain a standard of proficiency with weapons before they are permitted to carry a concealed gun. Proponents of the law believe it offers a greater sense of security and decreases crime by prompting felons to consider the consequences of armed confrontation.

We confess to harboring some reservations about the concealed carry law. Our fear was an increase in guns in public would result in more guns being displayed prematurely and/or more accidents.

White said recently: “All the fears over conceal and carry have never manifested.”

We concede the point.

Anecdotal evidence does not suggest an increase in accidents or unprovoked gunplay.

The evidence, however, does show people defending themselves from harm.

The message being sent to felons is don't bring a weapon to a crime unless you're prepared to accept the risk.

Click to expand...