Another "study" trying to prove that carrying a gun increases your chances of being shot

[daddyo]

God love'em... they're gonna keep trying.

 

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099

[TMF]

I'll commission my own study:

According to my study, 9 out of 10 liberals who ran their mouth about stuff they know nothing about were punched in the face for saying stupid things. The obvious solution to the problem is to limit the 1st Amendment rights of people for their own protection and to reduce the number of violent assaults, which have become a health concern.

[glock55]

Im looking forward to their study on "Investigateing the link between gun possession and successful self defense incidents."  science is about looking at all aspects of an issue and then drawing conclusions. anyway thats what i was taught when i was in school.

[zapfbroad]

while they don't exactly explain their adjustments for confounding variables in their terribly small sample size (~650 in philadelphia) that indicates a 5% greater probability of being shot if armed, they do acknowledge that elimination of their adjustments would reduce the risk to 2.5%. there is potential omitted-variable bias here as they are extrapolating out conditions of being armed with being proficient in the use of arms. there is no independent variable for situational awareness so pah. 

i call weak sauce

[BigK]

I'll commission my own study:
According to my study, 9 out of 10 liberals who ran their mouth about stuff they know nothing about were punched in the face for saying stupid things. The obvious solution to the problem is to limit the 1st Amendment rights of people for their own protection and to reduce the number of violent assaults, which have become a health concern.

I'd contribute to that kind of research!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Man, that was such a good study! Relying on conclusions drawn before the study commenced had to be the only way

they got their results. Kind of like the studies cooked up about global warming. Otherwise, they must have had a Hell

of a triage nurse finding the right people to fit that great study.

 

Trouble is, it will get air time when Lott, et al never do.

[gjohnsoniv]

Strangely enough another study found that not having means to defend yourself when the man with the gun kicks your door, found that almost all incidents are fatal or bodily harm results.

[dcloudy777]

I can think of about 6 million dis-armed "data points" in 1940s Central Europe that might skew their findings a little.   :bored:

[Wheelgunner]

Having five PhDs sign their names on an article does not cure absurdity in the article's findings.

I really hope when I get a graduate degree I don't experience the seemingly automatic loss of I.Q. points that so many doctors of philosophy seem to suffer upon being awarded the degree.

[Randall53]

No actors signed the study? :stunned:    I mean it's obvious that Hollywood is full of actors with 200+ IQ's and that like to tell us peons how to live.

[Grunt67]

There needs to be a study on the accuracy of studies.

[Garufa]

We're only going to see more of this as the CDC cranks up their Obama-mandated studies.

[hipower]

Meh.  A good statistician can make a case for the sun being blue given enough hand picked data.

[mcurrier]

Strangely enough another study found that not having means to defend yourself when the man with the gun kicks your door, found that almost all incidents are fatal or bodily harm results.

 

 

Shooting survivor: 'If I had a gun, I could have stopped him'

 

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/60981-shooting-survivor-if-i-had-a-gun-i-could-have-stopped-him/

[mcurrier]

This 'study' seems a lot more truthful -

 

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/61027-interactive-map-of-where-guns-were-used-in-self-defense/

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I can think of about 6 million dis-armed "data points" in 1940s Central Europe that might skew their findings a little.   :bored:

At least that many, but people tend to forget that, or worse, deny it.

[c.a.willard]

The one variable these study's never seem to eliminate is people who are participating in illegal activity at the time that they become "victims".

[East_TN_Patriot]

God love'em... they're gonna keep trying.

 

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099

There doesn't appear to be anything especially wrong with the study itself, but the problem lies in how the results are interpreted.  Here is the key point from the results section:
 

At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking.

 

 

In other words, this study found what criminologists already know about the majority of gun violence, and have know for over 20 years: most gun violence is perpetrated by low-income inner-city youth who are disproportionately minorities and engaged in criminal activity like the illicit drug trade and gang activity.  Where their analysis falls apart is they suggest the findings for the group they study is applicable to the public at large. This is a problem we call a "ecological fallacy" where the researcher tries to apply characteristics of a unique group to the population at large.  The researchers here allude to this in their limitations section, but not fully.  This what happens when people who are not trained as social sciences try to explain social phenomena like gun crime.  I see similar problems happen when economists - including John Lott - try to do the same thing.  Low-income urban youth tend to be part of a very unique sub-culture in American society where violence is a very common and expected part of daily life. It's simply inaccurate to compare the experiences of these individuals to the experiences of people who do not live in this social environment.  This would be like doing a study of gun violence in Afghanistan and saying that most victims of gun violence tend to be involved in military operations, so that is proof that possessing a firearm increases the likelihood of being killed by a firearm.

Edited February 16, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[Randall53]

Here is the key point from the results section:

 

In other words, this study found what criminologists already know about the majority of gun violence, and have know for over 20 years: most gun violence is perpetrated by low-income inner-city youth who are disproportionately minorities and engaged in criminal activity like the illicit drug trade and gang activity.  

 

I think you nailed it East_TN_ Patriot. :up:   This also skews the liberal statistics they love to quote.

Edited February 16, 2013 by Randall53

[UncleJak]

I have a phd and I did not sign this study!

[maddog909]

Considering the source of the study it doesn't surprise me in the least. The AMA is one of the most biased organizations around. They have a knack for tying together two unrelated events and finding an amazing correlation. Unfortunately many believe everything they are told no matter how illogical it may seem. In 3rd quarter biochemistry we had to read many of their supposed studies only to find that many were poorly designed which led me to believe they were created to prove a point either political, social or economic. None the less there are those out there who don't rely on critical thinking before making decisions.

[Guest almostdoc]

Maybe I have missed something, but I don't even understand how they got to the 4.46 relative risk number.  Their study population was made of people, all of whom were shot as victims during an assault, compared to a control population of the same age/race/time/etc (but not location...because all areas of Philly are equally safe...seriouly???).  They found in Table 1 that there was no significant difference in gun availability between those assaulted/shot and those not (5.92% vs. 7.16%).

 

Then in a few paragraphs they managed to CHANGE their control/test groups to those carrying vs. not carrying among those who were assaulted (also apparently switching to a retrospective cohort study in the process) and found those carrying at a higher risk.  But only after accounting for confounding variables (from the original study/control groupings).  Am I crazy or is some pretty shady statisting?  Not sure if I'm more peeved at the authors for such obvious dross or that the editors missed it.

 

But for you doctor bashers, note that no MDs were involved in the making of this fairy tale. :-)

[Randall53]

No....being unarmed in the presence of an ARMED criminal / gang member is what increases your chances of getting shot.

 

Where do this freak'n people come from?

[npgunner]

you guys are so silly and old fashioned ... "science" is no longer a process where you objectively gather data and draw conclusions based on that data ...

its the process of drawing a conclusion based on the liberal political agenda point of the day, and "gathering"/creating/misconstruing data points reported on the internet (where everything is true if it supports your belief, and false if it supports the opposite) that support your already drawn conclusion.

if you pay enough $ to a University and your "study" supports the agenda, you might be granted a Ph.D and be considered an "expert" in something likely not useful in everyday life ... 

 

science is such a joke now a days

 

let me put it in pictures: "scientists" =  :jester: who are  :owned: by, and  :bow: to the  :usa: who gives them  :2cents: to produce  :poop: so that you will drink the  :koolaid:

 

now ... back to my graduate level studies in mid 18th century Belgian lesbian studies ...

Edited February 21, 2013 by npgunner

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

So what they are saying is because the odds may be stacked against me by a mere 5% that I should just leave my weapon at home and make 100% certain that I dont survive any confrontation.

 

I guess that is one idea but sorry but my PHD in Life, Reality and Hard Knocks tells me otherwise.