|
|
|
Welcome to Outdoor Life
Subscribe to Outdoor Life
and enter to win $5000
Recent CommentsCategories
Recent Posts
ArchivesSyndicate   The Gun Shots |
October 27, 2009
Study: Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - 11
by John Haughey
A study published in New Science, a British magazine, says, "People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found." The University of Pennsylvania analyzed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighborhood. The study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher. While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighborhoods they probably shouldn't, the study speculates. Supporters of the Second Amendment shouldn't worry that the right to bear arms is under threat, however. "We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous," the study says. "This study is a beginning." As of Oct. 11, the story has generated 268 comments -- most of which made much more sense than the study. For more, go to: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-get-shot-and-killed.html |
|
OutdoorLife.com is part of the Bonnier Outdoor Group Network
Copyright © 2009 Bonnier Corp. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Comments (11)
With the limited information involved in the article, and the amount of shootings in Philadelphia that are gang and drug related, I think some further breakdown would be helpful. Distinguishing between victims who were innocent civilians with carry permits and someone who was shot while armed, but dealing crack on a corner would be a good start. I'll settle for a breakdown of "victims" with prior convictions and those without.
I find that those who I know carry are also more likely to be aware enough to avoid those situations and locations entirely. Those I know with a more liberal vent also tend to have the view that bad things shouldn't happen and therefore it's proper to act like they won't. My favorite statement made by a woman I know when I mentioned she shouldn't be walking back from South Street at midnight by herself was "I figure there are so many people, what are the odds something will happen to me".
Let me see, the study was done where? There is not enough information to determine if the study has any validity. They do not list simple things like, how many people were carrying illegally. If most of the people were carrying illegally, what are the odds that they were engaging in other activities which would make them more prone to being shot, like robber, drive-by shootings, shooting at cops? I'm thinking pretty high. Too bad more weren't killed.
There needs to be a complete review of the method that they used and all of their data looked at. This is a flawed study which sounds like they culled the data that they used on order to arrive at the conclusion they wanted. If someone had uses a model which had arrived at the opposite conclusion, I am sure these people would be attacking the results, the application of data, the source of the data and the competence of the people who were analyzing the data.
Back in the 80's, there was a study done at, I believe, Fla. State, which showed that gun owners were less likely to be injured by assailants in their homes than non gun owners. Gun Owners were injured 17% of the time in these incidents. Non-gun owners were injured 51%of the time. It has been many years since I read it, but the model used was originally to prove how bad guns in the home were. The author of the study changed his beliefs when presented by hard data that what he had been taught was a LIE.
The libs attacked everything they could about the study, but were unable to find any flaws in the study. So they just denied that it was legit and vilified anyone associated with it.
Taken from the study/article: "or encourages them to visit neighborhoods they probably shouldn't"
Huh? What? That doesn't make sense like the rest of their so-called study.
It's criminals shooting criminals...in criminal neighborhoods with unregistered and/or illegal guns. Now the real title that the hack job author should have given the article is "Gun-carrying Criminals in Dangerous Neighborhoods Are More Likely to Get Shot." Not such a genious study afterall, eh?
this study is a joke like all others.it does not prove anything except that the surveyors were confounding!
The article doesn't even come close to explaining the methodology or the many variables that need to be controlled for a study like this to be valid. I'd like to see the raw data. They "analyzed 677 shootings." Not murders, but shootings. The word shooting includes self defense--where the so called "victim" is the agresser. It also includes gang & drug related shootings, where armed criminals are killing each other. Those type of shootings have no bearing whatsoever on whether a law abiding citizen is safer with or without a firearm. I like my chances a lot better knowing that I have a chance to defend myself.
A survey conducted by a liberal university, taken about a gang infested liberal urban enviroment, with a pre-disposition for an outcome and I am supposed to take this crap literally? Makes me want to print it out, use it for what it is good for (TP), and then mail it back to them with a big ol "Thank You for your opinion and this is mine" attached to it.
I love that old quote from Winston Churchill. "There are liars, damn liars and statisticians."
Let me get this right, the study was done where and by whom!
“The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defence. The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside.... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; . . . the weak will become prey.”
-Thomas Paine (1737-1809), in "Thoughts on Defensive War", in The Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775
“Justice Department studies show that armed citizens are much less likely to suffer losses or personal injury from thieves”
-The Washington Post, 1992-Jan-7
_____________________________________________________
“Since Florida has enacted their concealed carry law, the Florida murder rate has dropped by 29%. Nationwide, the murder rate rose 11% over the same period...”
-ABC News, 1995-Mar-12, reporting on 1994 FBI crime statistics
____________________________________________________
“Our analyses provide no evidence that implementation of the Brady Act was associated with a reduction in homicide rates. In particular, we find no differences in homicide or firearm homicide rates to adult victims in the 32 treatment states directly subject to the Brady Act provisions compared with the remaining control states.”
-Jens Ludwig and Philip J. Cook, in The Journal of the American Medical Association, 2000-Aug-2, Homicide and Suicide Rates Associated With Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
________________________________________________
“But I don't want to defend myself.”
-reportedly uttered by a Brady Law supporter
“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”
-Col. Jeff Cooper, from The Art of the Rifle
________________________________________________
“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
-George Orwell
________________________________________________
“The broad principle that there is an individual right to bear arms is shared by many Americans, including myself. I'm of the view that you can't take a broad approach to other rights, such as First Amendment rights, and then interpret the Second Amendment so narrowly that it could fit in a thimble.”
-Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY, 2002-May-8 (http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/P...)
________________________________________________
“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they're not.”
-Hillary Clinton, 1992 60 Minutes interview
Post a Comment (200 characters or less)
With the limited information involved in the article, and the amount of shootings in Philadelphia that are gang and drug related, I think some further breakdown would be helpful. Distinguishing between victims who were innocent civilians with carry permits and someone who was shot while armed, but dealing crack on a corner would be a good start. I'll settle for a breakdown of "victims" with prior convictions and those without.
I find that those who I know carry are also more likely to be aware enough to avoid those situations and locations entirely. Those I know with a more liberal vent also tend to have the view that bad things shouldn't happen and therefore it's proper to act like they won't. My favorite statement made by a woman I know when I mentioned she shouldn't be walking back from South Street at midnight by herself was "I figure there are so many people, what are the odds something will happen to me".
Let me see, the study was done where? There is not enough information to determine if the study has any validity. They do not list simple things like, how many people were carrying illegally. If most of the people were carrying illegally, what are the odds that they were engaging in other activities which would make them more prone to being shot, like robber, drive-by shootings, shooting at cops? I'm thinking pretty high. Too bad more weren't killed.
There needs to be a complete review of the method that they used and all of their data looked at. This is a flawed study which sounds like they culled the data that they used on order to arrive at the conclusion they wanted. If someone had uses a model which had arrived at the opposite conclusion, I am sure these people would be attacking the results, the application of data, the source of the data and the competence of the people who were analyzing the data.
Back in the 80's, there was a study done at, I believe, Fla. State, which showed that gun owners were less likely to be injured by assailants in their homes than non gun owners. Gun Owners were injured 17% of the time in these incidents. Non-gun owners were injured 51%of the time. It has been many years since I read it, but the model used was originally to prove how bad guns in the home were. The author of the study changed his beliefs when presented by hard data that what he had been taught was a LIE.
The libs attacked everything they could about the study, but were unable to find any flaws in the study. So they just denied that it was legit and vilified anyone associated with it.
Taken from the study/article: "or encourages them to visit neighborhoods they probably shouldn't"
Huh? What? That doesn't make sense like the rest of their so-called study.
It's criminals shooting criminals...in criminal neighborhoods with unregistered and/or illegal guns. Now the real title that the hack job author should have given the article is "Gun-carrying Criminals in Dangerous Neighborhoods Are More Likely to Get Shot." Not such a genious study afterall, eh?
this study is a joke like all others.it does not prove anything except that the surveyors were confounding!
The article doesn't even come close to explaining the methodology or the many variables that need to be controlled for a study like this to be valid. I'd like to see the raw data. They "analyzed 677 shootings." Not murders, but shootings. The word shooting includes self defense--where the so called "victim" is the agresser. It also includes gang & drug related shootings, where armed criminals are killing each other. Those type of shootings have no bearing whatsoever on whether a law abiding citizen is safer with or without a firearm. I like my chances a lot better knowing that I have a chance to defend myself.
A survey conducted by a liberal university, taken about a gang infested liberal urban enviroment, with a pre-disposition for an outcome and I am supposed to take this crap literally? Makes me want to print it out, use it for what it is good for (TP), and then mail it back to them with a big ol "Thank You for your opinion and this is mine" attached to it.
I love that old quote from Winston Churchill. "There are liars, damn liars and statisticians."
Let me get this right, the study was done where and by whom!
“The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defence. The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside.... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; . . . the weak will become prey.”
-Thomas Paine (1737-1809), in "Thoughts on Defensive War", in The Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775
“Justice Department studies show that armed citizens are much less likely to suffer losses or personal injury from thieves”
-The Washington Post, 1992-Jan-7
_____________________________________________________
“Since Florida has enacted their concealed carry law, the Florida murder rate has dropped by 29%. Nationwide, the murder rate rose 11% over the same period...”
-ABC News, 1995-Mar-12, reporting on 1994 FBI crime statistics
____________________________________________________
“Our analyses provide no evidence that implementation of the Brady Act was associated with a reduction in homicide rates. In particular, we find no differences in homicide or firearm homicide rates to adult victims in the 32 treatment states directly subject to the Brady Act provisions compared with the remaining control states.”
-Jens Ludwig and Philip J. Cook, in The Journal of the American Medical Association, 2000-Aug-2, Homicide and Suicide Rates Associated With Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
________________________________________________
“But I don't want to defend myself.”
-reportedly uttered by a Brady Law supporter
“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”
-Col. Jeff Cooper, from The Art of the Rifle
________________________________________________
“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
-George Orwell
________________________________________________
“The broad principle that there is an individual right to bear arms is shared by many Americans, including myself. I'm of the view that you can't take a broad approach to other rights, such as First Amendment rights, and then interpret the Second Amendment so narrowly that it could fit in a thimble.”
-Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY, 2002-May-8 (http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/P...)
________________________________________________
“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they're not.”
-Hillary Clinton, 1992 60 Minutes interview
Post a Comment (200 characters or less)