Gun Possession Of Questionable Value In An Assault, Study Finds

Analog

Lifer
Jan 7, 2002
12,755
3
0
ScienceDaily (Sep. 30, 2009) ? In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.


The study was released online this month in the American Journal of Public Health, in advance of print publication in November 2009.

?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??

What Penn researchers found was alarming ? almost five Philadelphians were shot every day over the course of the study and about 1 of these 5 people died. The research team concluded that, although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the chances of success are low. People should rethink their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures, write the authors. Suggestions to the contrary, especially for urban residents who may see gun possession as a defense against a dangerous environment should be discussed and thoughtfully reconsidered.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...09/09/090930121512.htm
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
did they control for thugs shooting each other?
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
uh... I think it's a matter of gun owners getting overzealous with vigilantism during an assault. When two guns are drawn against each other in a scene, someone is going to get shot. And it tends to be the case that it's the one who is least proficient with a weapon.

I'm all for concealed carry, but if you have one it doesn't mean you act like a vigilante in every circumstance. You have to practice a little common sense and make a careful judgment of the situation. You don't need to shoot every individual who assaults with an armed weapon, most likely no one gets hurt in most instances until someone thinks they can be the hero.
 

tasmanian

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2006
3,811
1
0
Yep, if two people pull a gun on one another. The criminal is more likely to shoot first. If you pull a gun on a would be robber and he doesnt have a gun. He wont try and rob you.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
LOL, that study has some serious flaws.

that too. :)

Not every person with a lawful handgun draws their weapon when they are at the scene of an assault. Some people are smart and don't act like reckless heroes. It's the idiots who get themselves shot.

Folks, we should praise this. Hooray, Darwinism! :D
Sadly it's not the thugs getting shot in these instances, but people being reckless are going to get someone hurt - better themselves than others. Though who knows how many others were harmed in the instances when the idiots got themselves shot too. Hopefully no one.
 

Yukmouth

Senior member
Aug 1, 2008
461
0
0
Of course you have a greater chance of scaring someone if you're flashin guns around, that's just common sense. Generally people with guns like to talk about them, that's where they mess up.

I'd rather get caught with my heater than without it tho, it's just a misdemeanor.
 

pontifex

Lifer
Dec 5, 2000
43,804
46
91
umm...

What Penn researchers found was alarming ? almost five Philadelphians were shot every day over the course of the study and about 1 of these 5 people died.

WTF??? What does that have to do with people who carry a gun for self defense? how many of those shot even were carrying a gun? serious lack of data here or am I missing something?
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Ok, how many of them were legally carrying and not criminals with records? What a fucked up BS study.
 

pontifex

Lifer
Dec 5, 2000
43,804
46
91
ok seriously, wtf??? wtf does the following have to do with having a gun and being more likely to be shot? this research make NO FUCKING SENSE to me.

Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person?s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.

WTF!??!?!?!?!?!??!? a gun that was never unholstered or in a fucking car??? seriously???

These shooting cases were matched to Philadelphia residents who acted as the study?s controls. To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting.

?The US has at least one gun for every adult,? notes Branas.
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
14
81
I'm curious why medical doctors are researching crime statistics, as if the two have anything to do with one another.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Take what happens in Philly and project it onto the whole country.

Well, thats certainly accurate now isnt it. I think I'll stick with something a bit more valid, such as the work of John Lott.
 

MixMasterTang

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2001
3,167
176
106
The majority of people that were shot were probably involved in sketchy activities and more likely to have a gun. Or did they include Police officers also, since I'd assume every one of them own a gun, and their likeliness to get shot is much higher than a normal person. They should do a study of Doctors or Lawyers that own guns and see how their shooting deaths compare to Doctors and Lawyers without guns.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,082
136
Open Carry would solve about 99% of those problems.

Originally posted by: Triumph
I'm curious why medical doctors are researching crime statistics, as if the two have anything to do with one another.
The CDC has gun statistics too. They have a vested interest in how people die, so I can understand them doing tests as well as just collecting data.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,586
986
126
What I think this study failed to take into account was the fact that the moment you buy a gun you are transformed into Clint Eastwood...and nobody kills Clint Eastwood.
 

FirNaTine

Senior member
Jun 6, 2005
639
185
116
How about another possible conclusion from these numbers, people who are at risk of being shot are more likely to possess a gun?

Maybe people whose lifestyles, living conditions, and activities predispose them to being shot are more likely to have a gun handy.

 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Originally posted by: FirNaTine
How about another possible conclusion from these numbers, people who are at risk of being shot are more likely to possess a gun?

Maybe people whose lifestyles, living conditions, and activities predispose them to being shot are more likely to have a gun handy.

People that rob liquor stores with guns are more likely to get shot than those that don't rob liquor stores.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Heh this is a farce. The most shootings in Philly are drug or gang related. So a bunch of thugs are shooting each other and that translated into significance how? Dopes
 
S

SlitheryDee

Anyone else go from believing every finding by every study they heard about to believing none of them some time ago? Yeah, seems like so many studies are nothing more than political and economic tools designed to push an agenda or sell a product rather than actually get to the bottom of anything.

Shouldn't they have been looking at armed crime as a whole instead of just shooting victims in order to determine the percentage of people who were in possession of a gun and didn't get shot? Shouldn't the study have taken 677 armed robbery attempts (or similar crime) and separated the ones where the victim was in possession of a gun, then subdivided that group into people who got shot and people who didn't? That way they could determine which one was more likely simply by seeing which of the remaining 2 groups was larger. Instead they looked at people who got shot to start with, separated out the gun carriers, and called people after current shootings who had nothing to do with them. That doesn't seem to be a good way to reach a reliable conclusion of any sort.
 

Cheesetogo

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2005
3,824
10
81
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Here's a shocking stat100% of people killed by bullets are shot by guns.

OMG the HORROR!!!
STOP THE MADNESS.

So I'm safe to eat bullets then?
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,455
3
81
Originally posted by: Cheesetogo
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Here's a shocking stat100% of people killed by bullets are shot by guns.

OMG the HORROR!!!
STOP THE MADNESS.

So I'm safe to eat bullets then?

and i don't have to take any precautions when loading my own ammo ?
 

sutahz

Golden Member
Dec 14, 2007
1,300
0
0
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.