Gun Possession Of Questionable Value In An Assault, Study Finds

Originally posted by Miraj
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.

If someone were foolish to break into my house they'd have to deal with a 12 year old in fuzzy pink bunny slippers armed with a compound bow and a charging long-haired naked man screaming and wielding a longsword. I think even if they had a knife or even a gun they'd reconsider the sagacity of their choice to break in and turn and run.

Guns can grant safety in the trained hands, in particular situations, but sometimes barbaric ferocity in itself keeps you far safer.

So one study by a bunch of Drs from a liberal college runs contrary to every other study of the subject performed over the past 50 years and the tree huggers start jumping up and down?

This study is bull crap, the results faked - period.

Nice try, hippies.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by ecoparity]

[edit on 6-10-2009 by ecoparity]

Simply put:

Psychologically, if an attacker suspects a person possibly has a gun, they are less likely to attack. Reversally, if no chance of victim having a gun, then more violent attacks occur. Where's the proof?

"The 40 states (including Maine) where concealed-carry permits are readily available to law-abiding people report on average a 22 percent lower violent crime rate, a 30 percent lower murder rate, a 46 percent lower robbery rate and a 12 percent lower aggravated assault rate than the 10 states where the possession of firearms by honest citizens is greatly restricted."

pressherald.mainetoday.com...

DC until recently had the toughest gun laws and as most know also had the highest violent crime rate.

Yet in Vermont, where anyone can legally carry a concealed gun at any time without a permit, has the lowest crime rate in the US.

It's called correlation, reasoning, "in your face" data. What other explanation could you have?

And that old adage you can't honestly say wrong, "If guns were illegal, then only the criminals would have them."

reply to post by fraterormus


Indeed. The 12 year old would be shocking, and yourself be certainly scary.

Im pretty sure they would turn tell if they saw me grab my sword and toss the sheath aside, and raise it.

I just hope I wouldn't hit the ceiling with the tip

Swords are very useful. They give you a good range against even a machete wielding opponent, and it's very easy to gut someone or pierce their heart in a single movement. There's not enough room in hall ways to take someones head off though.

Originally posted by metamagic

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."

I don't think you read the article to be honest.

They selected 677 people who had been shot in an assault

Six percent of them were in possession of a handgun.

Now, instead of comparing that number to the number of people assaulted who were not shot (in possession of a gun or not) they played games with telephone polls by calling random people after a report of shots fired and asked them if they owned a gun.

Does that even make sense to you? From the study data alone I can conclude the opposite is true. Victims of assault who do not posses a weapon are 94% more likely to be shot than those who had guns.

The Police and NRA studies take a number of crimes and compare the number of those shot with those who were able to deter the criminal, detain them and so on. That's a more valid study, the one you posted was weighted to obtain a predetermined result.

Originally posted by ecoparity

They selected 677 people who had been shot in an assault

Six percent of them were in possession of a handgun.

It's not assault when a crack dealer gets shot?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by ecoparity

They selected 677 people who had been shot in an assault

Six percent of them were in possession of a handgun.

It's not assault when a crack dealer gets shot?

What does that have to do with anything?

They wanted to obtain a given result so they rigged the data.

They selected assaults where the victim had been shot 100% of the time.

Even with that they could only find 6% in possession of a gun. The results they wanted were blown at that point.

That's why, instead of performing a valid study, say take 1000 assaults where the victim was and wasn't shot and find out:
1. How many shot had a gun and brandished or used it?
2. How many brandished or used a gun and were not shot?
3. How many did not have a gun?

Once they realized only 6% of the data pool at any given time would have a weapon (which is the national average for victims of assault, by the way) they decided to use the random phone surveys in place of real data.

Studies of second hand smoke and so on use random phone data because they cannot obtain a comparison pool. In this case, the study had access to all the control data it needed in the crime statistics. They chose not to use it because it would have kept them from obtaining the desired result.

I'd like to know who sponsored the study?

reply to post by ecoparity


What do you want to bet it could be traced back to the Brady Campaign?

I bet if someone looks they will find a person of power (rich or a politician) or an anti gun group behind it.

Originally posted by Miraj
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.


[edit on 6-10-2009 by Miraj]

Very good points. Having a concealed gun in an assault may be a liability if the carrier is already being held up. On the other hand, a gun on the hip would be a visible deterrent and could logically prevent the assault from happening at all.

I'd like to see how many of these anti-gun people kill innocents in cell-phone related or alcohol related automobile deaths ever year. Do we ban cars, cell phones, or alcohol?

This study is obviously 100% Correct

If You have a gun and are assaulted by someone with a gun anyway, you are indeed 4.5 x more likely to be shot, than being a willing victim and allowing yourself to be robbed, raped or otherwise violated.

AND

If you have a gun your 15X Less Likely to be Assaulted period.




This is an incredibly biased study... I mean duhr, if your assaulted and you draw, urm yeah, the other person is more likely to fire and shoot you, which for some of us would be preferable to what will happen if they don't shoot at you... I am quite sure victims who don't fight back get shot less often than those who do

I am quite sure if forced into a Gun battle lol, i'd have a higher likely hood of being shot.

But...

It simply doesn't take into account the voluminous numbers of time I by being armed or willing to defend myself have avoided conflict by being armed... in my life and real experience growing up in rough neighborhoods being armed in any fashion has saved me countless assaults on my person 15-1 would be no exaggeration, if anything very underestimated.

The study can never account for the sheer volume of assaults that never take place as a result of being armed, it's completely misleading.

OK, here it is again. A map that shows gun ownership laws for all the states.

It also shows that mass murders by firearms are confined to so-called "gun free zones" - where only the criminals have guns in what for them is a target rich environment.

map

And what your study cannot show is the psychological effect of gun ownership. That is you are less likely to be attacked if the criminal suspects you could be armed yourself. This is because criminals are basically cowards.

FBI statistics also show that violent crime goes down when concealed carry laws are enacted.

This should really be the end of all these "I'm afraid of guns, so let's not let anyone else legally have one" threads.

Better yet. Go out shooting with someone you know and trust. I'm betting you will lose your fear and change your mind.

[edit on 10/6/2009 by centurion1211]

The doctor that did the study is a well known anti gun doctor.
www.haciendapub.com...
www.democraticunderground.com...

And Philadelphia gun laws may have more to do with the outcome of the study then the guns themselves.

If the same study was done in a Texas city i bet the outcome would be different.

i would rather go down shooting then just stand there and let a attacker just shoot me.

As a ex EMT i have been to shooting sites and in some cases the defender get shot but in most cases the attacker also takes lead and even in those cases that the defender gets shot many times the attacker is stopped and/or a lot less accurate from trying to shoot and duck at the same time.

I myself would rather go down shooting then just stand there and get shot.

The worst that can happen is they will need two body bags instead of just one for me.

If I'm in a parking garage at night, and a couple of thugs are checking me out in preparation for a car-jacking, seems to me they would think twice about their crime, if they were to see a GLOCK .40 on my side and the NRA plates. I can't imagine how open carrying wouldn't prevent crimes. Most criminals probably wouldn't take the chance, and would go after a softer target. Likewise, what are the chances of a convenience store being robbed, if the owner advertised he or his employees are armed?

reply to post by metamagic


"Will possessing a firearm always safeguard against harm or will it promote a false sense of security?”

If this was their thesis than it was set up to fail... owning a firearm is not about "always protecting you" its about giving you a better chance at survival... Really tho nice try by the scientists... but really a fail

Anyone see that documentary where the reporter guy went to prisons and asked burglars who they were afraid of? ill give you a hint it wasnt the police or the fear of imprisonment

[edit on 6-10-2009 by conspiracyrus]

reply to post by conspiracyrus


Maybe they really can't credibly come to the conclusion that "Guns are bad"

so they have to twist logic. Ultimately, this study wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, so it's really just a waste of their time.

Originally posted by metamagic

"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"

www.sciencedaily.com
[edit on 6-10-2009 by metamagic]

What would be really interesting is having the foresight to check the funding source for said work.
'Nation Institutes of Health' second only to the Brady bunch and the New England Journal of Medicine for alleged scientific studies. I expect more from members of ATS.

reply to post by metamagic


Wow, just another made up MYTH as the gun grabbers try to blame guns, and now they claim if you have a gun you are more likely to get shot....

Tell that to the people who have survived because THEY HAD A GUN....

As another poster said, if you don't want to have guns, IT'S YOUR CHOICE, bu leave the rest of us alone, making OUR OWN DECISIONS.

It is a RIGHT given by the Constitution of the Constitution of the United States, and no made up MYTH, nor all the babbling of the gun-grabbers will change the fact that the forefathers saw it wise to protect our RIGHT to own and bear arms...and in part that right was given exactly because the gun-grabbers would have loved to have banned all weapons in this country....

BTW, check your facts because in England, where handguns were banned crimes with handgus have INCREASED, because now the criminals are the only ones with guns....

[edit on 7-10-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by Miraj


Government grants make this possible ... they probably got an huge sum of money and were told "guns are bad mmkay?" and this is what they came up with ... i mean listen to the thesis posed ... Will guns ALWAYS protect you? OR are they a FALSE sense of security...its a double negative with the guise of being a positive negative... if anyone has ever written a thesis in college ... this would have gotten an F and they would have been told to leave the class

Originally posted by Anonymous Avatar
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]

Exactly. Per the article

"The research team concluded that, although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the chances of success are low.."

Low chance is better than no chance. I would like to see data relating to those gun owners who had some level of formal training.. police / military, or private gun course.. versus Joe Dirtbag drug dealer.

"People should rethink their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures"

Pearls of original wisdom...

reply to post by GovtFlu


common sense more like ... they lump in accidents and illegal gun ownership with their ridiculous thesis... i find it funny that studies like this even exist ... kinda like asking a 40 year old inmate sentenced to life will remember if he ate candy daily as a 5 yr old child.... they make numbers fit its their job