Gun Possession Of Questionable Value In An Assault, Study Finds

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
did they control for thugs shooting each other?

Most likely, no. They probably included felons carrying guns illegally for protection against other felons carrying guns illegally. In fact, that is exactly what they included.

 

[BigToque]

Having a gun and knowing when to use a gun are two different things.

Most people that are going to be committing crimes are likely doing it because they are desperate. They will be nervous, anxious and jumpy. If you pull a gun on someone who is already on edge, they'll likely panic. If they're armed, they'll probably shoot at you.

Your best bet is to just cooperate. There is no need to be a hero.

 

[mchammer187]

dumb study. Too bad there isnt one for just CCW owners.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Carrying a firearm has nothing to do with statistics and everything to do with having the right to protect yourself.

Oh, and this:

?This study helps resolve the long-standing debate about whether guns are protective or perilous,? notes study author Charles C. Branas, PhD, Associate Professor of Epidemiology. ?Will possessing a firearm always safeguard against harm or will it promote a false sense of security??

is a false dichotomy.

 

[tcsenter]

This study pretty much over-represents criminals hugely. They examined gun shot victims who came into the ER and were found to have a gun on them.

98% of people who come into the ER with a gun on them are going to be criminals, gang members, drug dealers, etc.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: sutahz
Very deep study indeed. If you dont have a gun and give someone w/ a gun what they want they (probably) wont shoot you. If you have a gun and aren't fast enough with it, there's a good chance they'll shoot you.
I'm going to let this soak in.

Let it soak in. And thnk about something else. Are you willing to gamble your life on hoping that SOB doesn't kill you so you can't send him to jail?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Econometric voodoo.

The full study is available here. I'll sift through it in more detail later tonight when I have time, but I can already tell you it's the same bunk that was spewed in Kellerman and is directly opposed by far more studies than can be found to support it.

Let's take a look at the study briefly:

However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were signi?cantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations 1,2 , less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of shooting, case participants were also signi?cantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed indi- viduals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug traf?cking (Table 1).

Well gee, do ya think??? So what the study REALLY proves is that gangbangers in the inner-city are more likely to be involved in shootouts than housewives. That's some real find detective work their Lou.

The FBI had a slightly different result in one of their studies:

"On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor vehicle theft. A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon." Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft NCJ-147003 April 1994 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Anyone else go from believing every finding by every study they heard about to believing none of them some time ago?

Not sure of your definition of some time ago, but yes. I wouldn't say I ever really bought every study, but when 90% of them are revealed in a short article to have fudged statistics in order to get a sensational headline I just go ahead and assume all of them are horseshit.

I think after I took my stats class in college I really stopped buying any of that shit. One of my main take aways from that class was "There are many ways to lie with statistics and plenty of reasons to do so."

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
This study pretty much over-represents criminals hugely. They examined gun shot victims who came into the ER and were found to have a gun on them.

98% of people who come into the ER with a gun on them are going to be criminals, gang members, drug dealers, etc.

Not remotely true. After almost three years in the ER I can guarantee you the opposite is true (at least in the Vancouver/Portland area - true inner cities would likely be different). We only pulled illegal weapons maybe a dozen times in that period, but we were securing legally carried weapons at least once a week.

 

[Zenmervolt]

The British Home Office statistics disagree with this study as well:

In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were:
Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%

In other words, of those who pulled a firearm on a robber, only 6% were injured. Of those who gave the robber everything the robber wanted, 25% were injured. I know which group I want to be in.

ZV

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: tcsenter
This study pretty much over-represents criminals hugely. They examined gun shot victims who came into the ER and were found to have a gun on them.

98% of people who come into the ER with a gun on them are going to be criminals, gang members, drug dealers, etc.

Not remotely true. After almost three years in the ER I can guarantee you the opposite is true (at least in the Vancouver/Portland area - true inner cities would likely be different). We only pulled illegal weapons maybe a dozen times in that period, but we were securing legally carried weapons at least once a week.

you have to figure too that the person carrying legally wants to keep his gun. the criminal carrying illegally lost it during the incident, was stolen after the incident, or dropped it so he wouldn't have be charged with illegal possession of a firearm.

 

[sourceninja]

Eh, I'd rather go down fighting and give my wife time to pull her gun then just stand there defenseless while they beat me and take her away.

There are two of us, we are both armed, we are both trained, and we both continue to keep getting trained. I think we are safe.

Plus with CCW in our state on the rise, crime is going down. I wonder why?

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Anyone else go from believing every finding by every study they heard about to believing none of them some time ago?

Not sure of your definition of some time ago, but yes. I wouldn't say I ever really bought every study, but when 90% of them are revealed in a short article to have fudged statistics in order to get a sensational headline I just go ahead and assume all of them are horseshit.

I think after I took my stats class in college I really stopped buying any of that shit. One of my main take aways from that class was "There are many ways to lie with statistics and plenty of reasons to do so."

It's not just the studies either. The media is horrible with this stuff. You can have a perfectly fine study that concludes one thing and by the time it gets filtered through to the media, the headline says the exact opposite.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Not remotely true. After almost three years in the ER I can guarantee you the opposite is true (at least in the Vancouver/Portland area - true inner cities would likely be different). We only pulled illegal weapons maybe a dozen times in that period, but we were securing legally carried weapons at least once a week.

This doesn't even pass the basic smell test. You can't lawfully carry guns in Vancouver - period - unless you are a LEO or you have some very sweet political/family connections with local law enforcement. Oregon is a shall-issue state, but Vancouver doesn't recognize it.

If you include the reason/complaint to ANY ER patient such as MVA and chest pain, I'm sure you're going to get some lawfully carried guns. But limiting only to shooting, stabbing, and assault patients? No.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Not remotely true. After almost three years in the ER I can guarantee you the opposite is true (at least in the Vancouver/Portland area - true inner cities would likely be different). We only pulled illegal weapons maybe a dozen times in that period, but we were securing legally carried weapons at least once a week.

This doesn't even pass the basic smell test. You can't lawfully carry guns in Vancouver - period - unless you are a LEO or you have some very sweet political/family connections. Oregon is a shall-issue state, but Vancouver doesn't recognize it.

If you include the reason/complaint to ANY ER patient such as MVA and chest pain, I'm sure you're going to get some lawfully carried guns. But limiting only to shooting, stabbing, and assault patients? No.

Ummm, WTF are you talking about??????????? Over 300,000 people in this state carry every day, including a large number in Vancouver.

Washington Concealed Carry Law

Furthermore you said NOTHING about limiting the dataset...you just said 98% of people in the ER with a gun on them. However, since we only ever had maybe a dozen illegal firearms confiscated it still won't hold up to the facts.

Edit: Ok, wait a minute...just dawned on me...were you thinking Vancouver BC?

 

[JS80]

:laugh: typical academia thinking they can trick people. We see right through the bullshit study.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Edit: Ok, wait a minute...just dawned on me...were you thinking Vancouver BC?

Pretty sure that's the case. People outside of Washington state tend not to remember that there's a Vancouver, WA as well as a Vancouver, BC.

ZV

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Edit: Ok, wait a minute...just dawned on me...were you thinking Vancouver BC?

Pretty sure that's the case. People outside of Washington state tend not to remember that there's a Vancouver, WA as well as a Vancouver, BC.

ZV

Yeah...I just can't imagine how there could be a Vancouver/Portland metro area if they're thinking BC and Oregon.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Ummm, WTF are you talking about??????????? Over 300,000 people in this state carry every day, including a large number in Vancouver.

Washington Concealed Carry Law

Ah, I forgot that Washington has a Vancouver, I was thinking the one in BC.

Furthermore you said NOTHING about limiting the dataset...you just said 98% of people in the ER with a gun on them. However, since we only ever had maybe a dozen illegal firearms confiscated it still won't hold up to the facts.

The study only looked at shooting victims who were residents of Philly that came into an ER possessing a gun (lawfully or not), then compared it to an anonymous phone survey of random Philly residents who were not involved in the shooting, had nothing to do with the shooting, and asked them if they were carrying a gun at the time this shooting occurred which did not involve them. I'm dead serious, read the article. Its the most absurd methodology I think I've ever heard of.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Ummm, WTF are you talking about??????????? Over 300,000 people in this state carry every day, including a large number in Vancouver.

Washington Concealed Carry Law

Ah, I forgot that Washington has a Vancouver, I was thinking the one in BC.

Furthermore you said NOTHING about limiting the dataset...you just said 98% of people in the ER with a gun on them. However, since we only ever had maybe a dozen illegal firearms confiscated it still won't hold up to the facts.

The study only looked at shooting victims who were residents of Philly that came into an ER possessing a gun (lawfully or not), then compared it to an anonymous phone survey of random Philly residents who were not involved in the shooting, had nothing to do with the shooting, and asked them if they were carrying a gun at the time this shooting occurred which did not involve them. I'm dead serious, read the article. Its the most absurd methodology I think I've ever heard of.

Not disagreeing in the least about the bogus nature of the study, it's worse than Kellerman. The journal should have its credentials pulled.

I didn't know you were specifically talking about the people in the study that came into the ER, I just thought you were saying in general people that came into an ER. That was my bad initially then.