It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gun Possession Of Questionable Value In An Assault, Study Finds

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Gun Possession Of Questionable Value In An Assault, Study Finds


www.sciencedaily.com

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.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   
While not a definitive answer, the study is the first data that shows that anecdotal stories of how guns make people safer is probably more urban myth than factual.

What's going to be really interesting is to see if other studies support this hypothesis and if anyone will be able to offer up an explanation. I have an idea why since if I imagine what I would probably do if I were an armed criminal and my victim pulled a gun on me... now I'm in a possible life and death situation where my best option is to shoot first. Let's face it, if I'm a criminal, I'm not likely to be considerate of the other guy or necessarily think things through logically and rationally.

www.sciencedaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


[edit on 6-10-2009 by metamagic]


+1 more 
posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Seems like they just lumped any and all shooting incidents into the report.

So Leroy Thugelson gets shot for selling crack on somebody else's corner. Oh look, Leroy had a gun in his waistband when he got shot. Didnt help Leroy much, did it?

Hardly seems like a valuable study if that's indeed what they did.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Well you certainly don't have to own a gun if you don't want one. Just leave my right to have guns alone and we are all good.

Beyond that debate is utterly pointless on this topic.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by Anonymous Avatar]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
I think the reality is that owning, even carrying a gun is not going to protect you.

You have to be willing to use it, when someone points a gun at you without knowing you have a gun, they are suggesting they are going to shoot you, though they may in fact not intend anything of the kind, as soon as you pull a gun out to direct at them you had better be dam ready to use it, because you've just escalated the situation to "someone is going to get shot".

It's likely the criminal is willing to use the weapon, even if they would prefer not to, and you had better have decided you are going to use it before you draw it.

It's not like the movies either, reality is your probably not a crack shot, non-lethal force is a nice idea, but you've got to be ready to kill someone, it's easy to say "yea I could do it", its a lot harder to pull the trigger.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Seems like they just lumped any and all shooting incidents into the report.

So Leroy Thugelson gets shot for selling crack on somebody else's corner. Oh look, Leroy had a gun in his waistband when he got shot. Didnt help Leroy much, did it?

Hardly seems like a valuable study if that's indeed what they did.


Why not actually read the article? It helps you discuss it more intelligently rather than posting comments about what you imagine the article might be about or what they might have done.

If you do actually read it, you will find that your comments are totally addressed by their discussion on methodology.

Remember the Dragnet Axiom "The facts ma'am, just the facts."



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
It is circumstantial evidence that they are basing their findings on.

The fact of the matter is that gun-related violent crimes are rare, even though we are inundated with them nightly on the news. When being a victim of a gun-related violent crime, a gun is only going to be useful in certain situations, it won't protect you from every situation.

To really be definitive an Epidemiological study needs to break down each situation on a case by case basis to come to any determinative findings.

Was the victim who was in possession of a firearm caught unawares by their assailant?

Did the victim who was in possession of a firearm have it loaded at the time of the crime?

Did the victim who had a firearm even have it in their possession at the time of the crime?

Did the victim who had a firearm have any training in the use of that firearm?

A gun in the hands of someone who is unskilled or unready to use it is indeed a liability to that person's well-being. If you chose to arm yourself then you need to learn to use it and not be afraid to use it.

However, having a gun isn't the cure-all panacea that some make it out to be. It won't save you from all situations. Your head will get you out of most situations and the gun is there for only those times when your wit fails you. And even then, there is nothing that is going to save you from a stray bullet fired a block away that was intended for someone else.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Better to be a gun owner and not need the gun rather than being one of those anti gun people with a gun in the face..wishing to GOD that someone or something would save you.

The study is bias and This topic is pointless.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I can see why a person might be more likely to be shot by an armed assailant during an assault. As was already said, the victim's gun comes out and now the assailant fears for their life and shoots. However, assaults armed with a gun are the minortity.

2006 data from USDOJ states that in assaults, 70.8% of the time no weapon was used, in 6.8% some kind of firearm was used, 5.6% a knife was used and 4.4% a blunt object. For all crimes of violence no weapon in 67.8% of incidents, firearms in 8.8%, knives in 5.7% and blunt objects in 4.4%. IN addition, in 7.6% of cases the victim didn't know if a weapon
was used at all.

So before writing-off 'carrying' as a valid mean of protection you have to place it in context. In over 70% of incidents the assailant is unarmed and very likely to be deterred by the victim being armed (assuming the victim has an opportunity to respond).



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Just owning a gun doesn't make you safer, you have to know how to use it too. In the hands of an untrained individual, a gun is a serious threat to the individuals own life and those around him.
Proper training and tactics make all the difference.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by metamagic
 


I did read it. Three times so far. I dont see how their methodology would have accounted for thug crime in the thug world with their thug guns.

Maybe I'm just that dense and I missed it?


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.


Given that most dependents in an urban setting are not gun owners the majority of urban guns are owned by criminals or floating their way through the black market. Making this:


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.


completely worthless. How many ghetto-trash idiots are going to be answering their phones for a survey?

Maybe if they called more rural areas of Penn that are heavy into hunting and marksmanship and not so blatantly gun-phobic as their urban counter-parts the calls would have had more value as a "control." But then that would be worthless for it's own set of reasons the least not being that rural life in no way resembles urban life.

And not for nothing but if some random person called up my house asking if I owned any guns I wouldnt exactly be eager to answer honestly.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by thisguyrighthere]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Don't pull it if you don't plan on actually using it. If you are not well trained and comfortable with your firearm, again, don't pull it out.

I don't think the study took enough "variables" into count, just as a previous poster pointed out.

Besides, this is actually a "right" leaning belief that I have, don't touch my firearms. If studies are going to be done, then do them correctly and not with an end agenda that is being looking for. IE: have an agenda to prove firearms are dangerous, then make sure your findings support that.

I would have to hunt
them down again, but I have read studies which prove the opposite of this study. So take it with a grain of salt, and look at who did the study, and what the end agenda just might be.

Harm None
Peace



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by metamagic
 


I think it's hard to judge this in a scientific study.

The useful-ness of a gun varies greatly.

If the gun is already on you, and you don't have one on them? Yeah, that's a bad situation.

But if you hear the door kicked in the middle of the night, and your dog barking loudly down stairs.. And you have a gun AT THE READY. Then this could be the most valuable thing you own at that moment.

I believe it though. Unless you know how to play mind games when someone is pointing a gun at you, it can be pretty pointless. Unless you are really well trained, and fit. I've seen a video where an israeli special forces soldier twisted a guys gun, pulled it out of his hand, cocked the hammer and then put it on him before an average person would even percieve that he was doing it.

I should also note: There was a survey done among scientists that concluded only about 3 out of 10 scientists will actually accurately report their findings. They can twist things however they want. If a conservative researched did it, I guarantee he would find that if you did not have a gun, you were 10x more likely to be killed.



[edit on 6-10-2009 by Miraj]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by metamagic
While not a definitive answer, the study is the first data that shows that anecdotal stories of how guns make people safer is probably more urban myth than factual.

www.sciencedaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


[edit on 6-10-2009 by metamagic]


Urban myth? This was your conclusion? Glad I didnt waste time reading the link. Anecdotal stories?

Like some said here, you have to be ready to use it. Some pull out a gun for fear effect only and get hurt. If I have to pull I have already considered that the situation calls for the very real need to use. That doesnt mean someone wont be shooting back at me, but I have considered that as well.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
PUH-leeeeeez!!!
Obviously the OP and the authors of the study have an agenda. I'm not even going to grace such disgrace with the countless factual responses which could blow this premise to pieces. Let's just say that there is a very old saying in statistics: "Numbers are like prisoners, you can get them to tell you anything if you just torture them enough!" I find that the study is neither valid nor reliable and therefore does not rise to the standard of initiating a thoughtful debate.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Indeed I live in a Rural area myself... It can be scary sometimes with stranger knocking on my door.... Some idiots have no fear of driving down a poorly maintained dirt road to knock on this dilapidated house to try and sell me "Swanson" or "Avon"..it bothers me but I do not get my gun over it.

Still I am a gun owner, and if it ever came to that...I would not want it to come to that. Because if one must pull a gun one must be ready to shoot to kill...

Sucks but that is the truth of it all...

In the city do guns make folks safer....

Last year I went to Houston to visit family. On the drive home I saw a woman in the middle of the night walking on the seedy side..... She really looked out of place there. I was about to stop and offer her a ride when I noticed she had a gun purse with her hand on the inside....I figured she would be just fine walking home to where ever she would be from.

For those that don't know a gun purse would be a purse that has a holster in the middle of it for concealed carry. Some women never leave home with out it.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Hey, if you don't like guns, fine, no one is making you own one, just do me 2 favors:

1. Ask your wife/girlfriend/mother not to come running to my house for help while the naked rapist with the butcher knife is still chasing her; and

2. Please send all your unwanted guns to me (for free) so all the evil is concentrated in one place.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by titorite

Indeed I live in a Rural area myself... It can be scary sometimes with stranger knocking on my door.... Some idiots have no fear of driving down a poorly maintained dirt road to knock on this dilapidated house to try and sell me "Swanson" or "Avon"..it bothers me but I do not get my gun over it.


Or..... it could end up being something like this:


Senior Assistant Attorney General Will Delker said Cates' home was chosen because it was on an isolated road. He said that Cates was stabbed to death in her bed, while her daughter was seriously injured and had to undergo surgery.Source


Dog and a gun could have prevented all of this. Either a dog or a gun could have changed it favorably for the woman and her daughter.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Yup.

If I lived in that situation, I would keep a round in the chamber.

I live in a populated neighborhood.. So if a gun goes off, people call the cops.

Also, they would be idiots to bring a knife into my house, since my katana is within quicker reach than my gun. And I have some training to use it.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Wow. Another laughable study.

They randomly call people, which doesn't factor in the fact that crime occurs in clusters. Who here has ever heard the term "high crime area"? Anybody? Anybody?

Also, are felons really going to say, "well yes, I do in fact have a firearm that I carry" NO!

How many of us who are wary of people, whoever they are, assessing our defenses would lie and say that they don't have a gun? I have, and I know a dozen people off the top of my head who do the same.

Additionally, what about the shootings where nobody is hit and everyone scampers off? Not addressed at all.

I bring this up because I was the victim of an attempted robbery by 3 thugs in CA. I saw one pull out a revolver and booked it around the corner. Knowing I wasn't going to outrun the bullet, I turned and drew my weapon and fired 3x right as they rounded the corner. They shot once and ran their asses off. Nobody was hit. No police report was filed. I just recovered my spent casings and went home.

These are from 2007, but it shows a good bit of info as to the distribution of crimes in the Philly area:
www.philly.com...
inquirer.philly.com...
inquirer.philly.com...




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join