More from the Brady Bunch.

[Beau]

If you have a pistol for self defense your more likely to be shot than if you don't.

Study Shows Those Armed More Likely To Be Shot



Oct 6, 2009

Washington, DC - A new study by University of Pennsylvania researchers shows that people in possession of a firearm are almost 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than people who are not in possession of a firearm. The study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and appears in the November 2009 issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

The published conclusions state “on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas.”

Possessors of guns may be in more, not less, danger for a number of reasons, researchers wrote. Offenders often use surprise to overpower their victims, making it difficult to use a gun for self-defense; if a victim is able to draw a gun, it signals to the offender that he must use maximum force to overpower the victim. In addition, the increased possibility of guns being carried in the community may lead to an escalation in the lethality of weapons brought to an argument, researchers argued.

Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, responded to the report as follows:

“The study’s findings show once again the risks of gun ownership and how having more guns correlates with more gun violence. This research severely undermines the argument by gun pushers that carrying a gun automatically makes a person safer. In urban areas, gun possessors, far from being protected by their guns, are at an increased risk of harm. Restrictions on carrying guns clearly makes sense as a smart public safety strategy.”

The study’s lead author is Charles C. Branas, of the Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Firearm and Injury Center at Penn, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. Researchers enrolled 677 case participants who had been shot in an assault and 684 control participants. The study lasted from October 2003 through April 2006, was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and was published in the November issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

A study abstract is at www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2008.143099v1.

###​

As the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, works to enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regulations and public policies. The Brady Campaign is devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.
For continuing insight and comment on the gun issue, read Paul Helmke's blog at www.bradycampaign.org/blog/. Visit the Brady Campaign website at www.bradycampaign.org.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...
As the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, works to enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regulations and public policies. The Brady Campaign is devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.
...

OK, let me see if I have this right: They want to control the guns so that only the cops and the criminals (who don't obey laws or get permits and certainly don't buy guns at gun shops) have them. This, they feel, will make a safer America.

Let's put this in perspective:
I challenge Paul Helmke to enter a zoo enclosure with a hungry, carnivorous predator of at least his physical size, unarmed.

"Just give him what he wants, Paul!"

Edit: I'll up the stakes some: Paul can go in one enclosure and I'll go in another one myself, armed. We'll see which of us walks out.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[IndianasFinest]

Absolute nonsense, nothing more.

 

[Hoosier8]

I read the study and what jumped out at me were two things. First, don't move to Philadelphia. Second, I will paraphrase, those most likely to be killed were Hispanic in high risk neighborhoods with drugs and had a high risk job categorization of "handling cash", which made me laugh.

 

[thej27]

They dont even enforce the how many thousands of gun laws that are on the books now. Why would having more be better. If they want a violent free utopia like they try to claim can be achieved they might as well wall off all of the borders and execute every criminal no matter how small the crime. Morons. On a side note check out their "definition" of an "assault" weapon. It would almost be comical if those clowns didnt believe it and the "facts" could be torn to shreds. Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence : Military - Style Assault Weapons

 

[POTI]

This one made me pee a little I was laughing so hard

"A barrel shroud which enables the shooter to shoot many rounds because it cools the barrel, preventing overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire;"


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo[/ame]

 

[Doug]

Well, let's see...

They found that people who had been shot were more likely to have had a gun than the general population who who had not been shot.
They DID NOT check to see how many of the people who had been shot were engaging in criminal activity at the time, how many were likely victims of "turf wars" between rival gangs, how many were convicted criminals likely to have been shot in revenge, how many were ambushed police officers, etc, etc, etc...

Unless you control for the actions of the person shot, the study is totally worthless.
JABL--Just Another Brady Lie

Doug

 

[nawainwright]

Once again, why would you READ or UNDERSTAND the legislation you're trying to push through? Do these people have an ounce of common sense?

 

[Leadeye]

Like any experiment where you get to cherry pick the data it comes as no surprise that the results support the hypothesis. Over the years I 've seen this done so many times where some dramatic "conclusion" is reached based on a small sample of cherry picked data and then the results are brayed out by the media as absolutes.

 

[melensdad]

Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch over this we need to start digging for the FACTS. They note the study but don't give any details. I've been digging for how the study was conducted and can't find much about it but this is what I did find.

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

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.

A 2005 National Academy of Science report concluded that we continue to know very little about the impact of gun possession on homicide or the utility of guns for self-defense. Past studies had explored the relationship between homicides and having a gun in the home, purchasing a gun, or owning a gun. These studies, unlike the Penn study, did not address the risk or protection that having a gun might create for a person at the time of a shooting.

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.

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. This is the same approach that epidemiologists have historically used to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes.

“The US has at least one gun for every adult,” notes Branas. “Learning how to live healthy lives alongside guns will require more studies such as this one. This study should be the beginning of a better investment in gun injury research through various government and private agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control, which in the past have not been legally permitted to fund research ‘designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.’”​

Now the article above gives us a LITTLE BIT more insight but still not enough to go on for facts. It does raise a lot of questions. So I did more digging.

Here are some critical questions and observations:

Conspicuously missing from the press release and the news story were two critical limitations that were admitted in the original study [
AJPH -- Sign In Page ]. These qualifiers
mean that the press release headline, as well as all the other
statements and implications of causation, were quite mistaken. Perhaps
defensive possession and carrying of guns helps protect the possessor
and carrier, and perhaps it doesn’t. But the study sheds virtually no
light on the subject.

1. To begin with, there’s the obvious causation/correlation problem.
Maybe, as the authors speculate, carrying a gun increases your chances
of being shot with a gun (as suggested by the framing of the issue as
“whether guns are protective or perilous”), or at least fails to
decrease them (”guns did not protect”). Or maybe a third source —
perhaps some people’s being the targets of death threats, or being in
a dangerous legal line of work, or being gang members or drug dealers
— causes both higher gun carrying among those people and higher risk
of being shot.

By way of analogy, we don’t suggest that pacemakers cause heart
attacks, or don’t protect against heart attacks, just because we find
a correlation between the presence of pacemaker and the incidence of
heart attacks. Obviously, people might get pacemakers precisely
because they’re at risk of heart attacks. Well, people might get guns
precisely because they’re at risk of attack. (Stewart Baker [
http://www.skatingonstilts.com/skating-on-stilts/2009/10/can-this-stu...
] makes a similar point.)

One can try to control for this in some measure — but while the study
controls for some relevant attributes (race, sex, age, neighborhood,
having a “high-risk occupation,” and having at least one arrest on
one’s record), it leaves a vast range of factors uncontrolled. You’d
think that gang members are more likely than others to carry guns and
to get shot, even controlling for the presence of an arrest record.
(Lots of law-abiding people carry guns, but I expect that more gang
members do.) But the study doesn’t control for that, or for many other
things.

Let me illustrate this with a deliberately oversimplified model. Let’s
begin by assuming a total population of 100,000, that’s divided into
two groups, a 10% high-risk group and a 90% low-risk group. Let’s say
that the high-risk group has a 60% risk of being attacked, and as a
result 40% of its members carry guns. And let’s say that the low-risk
group has a 5% risk of being attacked, and as a result 3% of its
members carry guns. Let’s also imagine a total population of 100,000
(just to make the numbers easier), and let’s assume that possessing a
gun has a modest protective effect for both groups — it reduces the
risk of being injured when attacked from 75% to 60%.

Here’s what this turns out yielding, with “A” meaning “armed subgroup”
and “U” meaning the unarmed subgroup.

The result: The armed subgroup has 3.5 the risk of injury compared to
the unarmed subgroup, and the relative odds ratio between them is
4.29. And this is so even though in the model gun possession decreases
the injury risk for both the high- and the low-risk group.

Naturally, this is just a model; the real numbers are likely very
different from the ones I give here, and in fact no-one knows what the
real numbers are. (The model also doesn’t precisely fit the numbers in
the study, though I’m pretty sure one can make a similar model that
would fit them more closely.) My point is that one just can’t infer
from an odds ratio of over 4 to the judgment that “guns did not
protect those who possessed them,” much less that they were actually
“perilous” to the possessors. The high odds ratio is just as
consistent with the model I describe as with a model where gun
possession increases the risk of injury.

2. But wait, there’s more. The research model works only to the extent
that you actually know who possesses guns and who doesn’t. Both the
cases (people who were shot) and the controls (people who were called
on the phone) might want to conceal their gun possession. The cases
might have thrown away their guns before the police arrive (sometimes
easy, sometimes hard or dangerous). The controls might have lied to
the stranger who calls them to ask them, “Where were you at 10:30 pm
two nights ago?,” and “Were you possessing a gun at the time?” (always
easy and safe).

And both the cases and the controls might have plenty of reasons to
lie. They might have been possessing guns in public without a
concealed-carry license. They might have been felons who didn’t have
the right to possess a gun even at home. (People with arrest records
made up 53% of all cases and 37% of all controls; the study doesn’t
tell us how many had felony conviction records, but I suspect that
quite a few of those with arrest records did.) Or they might not be
sure what the questioner is getting at. And that’s true even if the
questioner claims that he’s just an academic researcher.

Fortunately, the study helpfully tells us what would happen if there’s
concealment of gun ownership by some fraction of cases and controls —
though of course the press release and the newspaper article are
silent about this. If only 1% of controls and cases who are reported
not to have had guns are randomly recoded to having guns, two of the
three results (”all gun assaults,” “gun assaults where victim had at
least some chance to resist,” but not “fatal gun assaults”) end up
yielding statistically insignificant results. If 3% are so recoded,
all three results lose statistical significance.

If we assume that 1% of controls were concealing their gun possession
and 0% of cases were concealing it — not implausible, since it’s
easier for a control to conceal gun possession than for a case to do
so (since the cases may be too injured to get rid of the gun, may need
a gun for continued self-defense, and in any event are the subjects of
a police investigation in which the police might learn the truth) —
all three results lose statistical significance. The numerical value
of the non-significant odds ratios falls as well; if 5% of controls
conceal their gun possession buy 0% of cases do, the odds ratio falls
to 2, which of course reflects a considerably lower relative risk. And
these are pretty low percentages of false reporters, given the
incentives that many people might have to hide their gun possession.
And all this is in addition to the possible confounding factors
discussed in item 1 above. If there were no such confounders, then
perhaps even a low odds ratio might be telling, or perhaps even a
statistically insignificant odds ratio above 1 might in some measure
undermine the “guns as protective” theory. But these two problems put
together — the possibility that the result stems from the existence of
a high-risk group whose members are especially likely both to carry
guns and be the targets of attack, and the possibility of even slight
misreporting dramatically affecting the results — make the study
highly uninformative.

So it’s possible that gun possession was “perilous,” in the sense of
increasing the risk of the possessor’s being injured. It’s possible
that it “did not protect those who possessed guns,” in the sense that
it didn’t reduce the risk of the possessor’s being injured. But it’s
also possible that it was “protective,” in that it reduced the risk of
the possessor’s being injured, but this result is swamped by the other
phenomena I point to. The study doesn’t give us much extra information
about which theory is correct. And yet it is publicized, and it’s
reported, as if it did robustly show the causal relationship.​

 

[DarkLight]

As stated on the Brady Website:

"Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile to kill an animal, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to kill as many people quickly, as would be needed in combat." (Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence : Military - Style Assault Weapons)

AHH! I see now, I've been going about this all wrong. Next time I have a heated political debate I need to pull out my AR and fire from the hip in quick succession so that my point is made and I eliminate the maximum number of opponents.......now that I think about it....

 

[SC_Shooter]

Very good additional information above. I for one would not be answering questions about my whereabouts and carry status to someone calling me on the phone...therefore I would have skewed the results.

Basically, there are lots of variables in play on an issue like this and we all know that the Brady Bunch will always dissect any study until they have carved any actual facts out of it that do not support their position. Any scientist out there will tell you that their role is:

- create a study
- make sure it covers all known variables and possibilities
- gather data
- analyze that data
- THEN put forth a conclusion


The Brady Bunch has a different plan:

- publicize your opinion
- find a friendly researcher
- create a study with only the variables that might help support your opinion
- gather data
- analyze that data
- conclude that your original opinion was correct

As stated on the Brady Website:

"Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile to kill an animal, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to kill as many people quickly, as would be needed in combat." (Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence : Military - Style Assault Weapons)

AHH! I see now, I've been going about this all wrong. Next time I have a heated political debate I need to pull out my AR and fire from the hip in quick succession so that my point is made and I eliminate the maximum number of opponents.......now that I think about it....

Oops, let everyone know to stop aiming those AR's at the 3-gun competitions.

 

[Dashman010]

Melensdad, don't mean to be a stickler, but make sure you quote your source of counter information, which if I'm not mistaken is Eugene Volokh and his excellent blog at volokh.com.

 

[melensdad]

I did, I even provided a link to the AJPH webpage, its in the post.

But its interesting that I am being held to a higher standard that others. I almost always link to source material, most of the articles posted on INGO are not.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Having a gun endangers a person?

Protect the police! Disarm them!

 

[Dashman010]

I did, I even provided a link to the AJPH webpage, its in the post.

But its interesting that I am being held to a higher standard that others. I almost always link to source material, most of the articles posted on INGO are not.

Not trying to hold you to a higher standard, just the standard volokh requests on his blog for citing -- and the link to the AJPH page doesn't give the counter-arg volokh gave in his post.

No big deal, I just like credit being given where credit is due.

 

[melensdad]

No big deal, I just like credit being given where credit is due.

Which is why I provided the link.

 

[Dashman010]

Which is why I provided the link.

Forgive me if I'm missing it, but I don't see a link to the Volohk blog. I see a link to the webpage for the study, but you had a ton of counter argument that wasn't attributed to anyone, as far as I can tell, and it was really good counter argument.

If you did cite to volokh somewhere, I apologize for this extended inquiry.

 

[SirRealism]

One of my favorite anti- tactics is to use words like "sensible" and "common sense" to ameliorate the concept for the masses. One of my least favorite truths is that it seems to work with a massive number of the masses.

I don't know about you, but if something truly is common sense, then stating that is redundant and patronizing.

...common sense government involvement in health care...
...enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regulations and public policies...

Ack! Thbbft!

 

[KiteEatingTree]

Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed?

Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

I'd love to see a study about Branas' speculation that a sense of empowerment may lead to overreactions. My feeling is that overreactions and empowerment have more to do with training than anything else. Would also be great to see this study replicated in different communities around the country and elsewhere.