[News] Protection Or Peril? Gun Possession Of Questionable Value In An Assault, Study Finds

[Moontanman]

Protection Or Peril? Gun Possession Of Questionable Value In An Assault, Study Finds

 

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.

 

Protection Or Peril? Gun Possession Of Questionable Value In An Assault, Study Finds

[Pyrotex]

I didn't read your linked article, but I would like to point out that the study results could be entirely TRUE, but for a variety of reasons.

 

People with guns may be more likely to indulge in risky behavior. (I can shoot my way out of it.)

People with guns may be more likely to underestimate risk. (He ain't that tough.)

People with guns may have social agendas. (It's up to me to remove some bad guys.)

People with guns may have under-developed logic. (Having a deadly weapon makes me safer.)

People with guns may have self-esteem issues. (I can walk into any neighborhood I want to.)

People may own guns for the wrong reasons. (Pretty gun! Pretty gun! I love you, gun!)

[CraigD]

You left out at least a couple of other IMHO significant confounding reasons, Pyro:

• People carrying guns at the time they’re shot (what the study counted, according the article, was people who had a gun on or near their person, “such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle”, when they were shot) are carrying them because they have reasonable and specific fears someone means to shoot them (crap! That girl’s boyfriend/husband is going to kill me!)
  
• People with guns are often members of shady professions (carrying all this cash and drugs, and not being able to call the cops to help me if somebody tries to steal them, I better have a gun!)
  

Reading just the article, I’m a bit suspicious of statistical bias due to the method used to determine the incidence of gun carrying for the control group (people not shot): “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”. Without a supporting survey to estimate the incidence of people lying to the canvasser about their having a gun (I know if I was carrying a gun, legally or illegally, I’d think carefully before telling a stranger over the phone).

 

Still, this sounds like an important, yea groundbreaking, study, one well worth reading and carefully critiquing. :thumbs_up