How to get shot
Cliff
[
Packing heat gets you shot, say profs
Likelihood of cold dead fingers rises with gun ownership
]
[
Medical researchers in Philadelphia have conducted out a study which indicates -
according to their interpretation - that carrying a gun causes people to get
shot more often. "People should rethink their possession of guns," say the
medics.
�This study helps resolve the long-standing debate about whether guns are
protective or perilous,� says University of Pennsylvania epidemiology prof
Charles Branas. The Penn announcement is headlined "Gun Possession [is] of
questionable value in an Assault
]
[
The Penn researchers carried out their study by randomly selecting 677 people in
Philadelphia who had been shot in "assaults".
]
[
According to the profs, six per cent of the shooting victims were packing heat
when they got plugged. They compared that to a control sample of Philadelphians
who had not been shot, and concluded that "people with a gun were 4.5 times more
likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun".
The research techniques used were the same as those previously used "to
establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and
car crashes". The message is: you smoke, you'll get cancer; you drive drunk,
you'll crash your car; carry a gun, you'll get shot.
]
Dave C.
Talk about spin! The study didn't consider WHY the people carrying guns were carrying guns. Most likely, the gun-toting gunshot victims were more likely to get shot whether they were packing or not.
Example: You are a notorious leader of a gang and your rival gangs are armed. You'd pretty much feel like you have to carry a gun. But whether you are carrying a gun or not, you are about 1000% more likely than the average Joe to get shot.
Just goes to show, statistics can be spun to mean anything. -Dave
Cliff
"Talk about spin!"
--
Cliff
Darrell Stec
In the past couple of years our little town all the sudden has had an
explosion of murders, five if you count them (pop. 5002 minus those who
moved after the last census).
Discounting the famous one, where a woman shot her air force husband then
skipped to Brazil, there were two drug deals gone astray. The other two
were gun dealers/collectors killed during a home invasion. Loaded guns
were within easy reach, in one case just by the arm of the couch the man
was sitting on. There were also guns nearby in the drug cases (in hand
would be more accurate, but they were outgunned).
You can't say, "Hold on a minute while I pull out my gun," if you are
suddenly attacked. And it is unlikely unless one is very, very well
trained in martial arts and "spy" techniques as seen on TV that you will
get a drop on someone holding a gun. Besides, the perpetrator is not about
to say, "hey, now guy (or gal) I'm gonna pull out my piece and rob you."
Well they won't most of the time, although I actually had somebody say
something very similar to me.
--
Later,
Darrell
DaveG
> Talk about spin! The study didn't consider WHY the people carrying guns
> were carrying guns. Most likely, the gun-toting gunshot victims were
> more likely to get shot whether they were packing or not. Example: You
> are a notorious leader of a gang and your rival gangs are armed. You'd
> pretty much feel like you have to carry a gun. But whether you are
> carrying a gun or not, you are about 1000% more likely than the average
> Joe to get shot.
>
> Just goes to show, statistics can be spun to mean anything. -Dave
Maybe you ought to read the report. You can Google the full report. You
don't need to go through the subscription site linked in the article.
Of course, no doubt there is "spin" in the research and the results, but
nowhere near as much as you suggested.
--
You cannot simply assume someone is honest
just because they are not an MP.
Dave C.
The only "study" of this type that I would believe is one in which average housewives of affluent neighborhoods were given handguns AND training in how to use them... and then see how many of them get shot in relation to similar housewives who do not carry guns.
Let's face it, rich housewives are (in general) not too likely to get shot. If carrying a gun makes THAT group much more likely to get shot, then you might have statistics that mean something.
Otherwise, the conclusion of any such study would have to be highly suspect. -Dave
Darrell Stec
> Let's face it, rich housewives are (in general) not too likely to get
> shot.
Is that one of those common sense things that aren't actually common sense?
Freakonomics is an interesting book that dispels common belief. (Though
does look at that on IIRC)
--
Later,
Darrell
Cliff
IOW You agree with such as Lott & the NRA.
We would have the most deaths by gunfire if nobody had any guns
and the fewest deaths by gunfire if everybody was armed with nukes &
machine guns (and was constantly firing them off at random).
See CDC death stats.
In, at the very best, 1 time in 9 when someone gets killed by
gunfire it was in legal self defense.
Not so in the other 8 out of 9 deaths.
Naturally, in a "bet your life" case with 1 to 9 odds of killing legally
you will bet on the 1.
These bets fill up the jails & cost us all a lot.
Plus the dead, injured, maimed, ....
--
Cliff
Cliff
>
>Let's face it, rich housewives are (in general) not too likely to get shot.
Is this another Palin joke?
--
Cliff
Cliff
IOW He's not going to read the report.
He already KNOWS.
Winger spoor.
--
Cliff
DaveG
Sounds to me like you just want to apply more spin for your own agenda.
You obviously didn't bother to read the report. FWIW I'm not defending
the report because I don't know enough about the situation on the USA
side of the sea. But you obviously have no idea either.
A bit like the "right to keep and bear arms" and the upcoming supreme
court case WRT to banning of handguns in some areas. I don't see no
mention of steekin' "firearms" in the amendment. How are your Pike
skills?
Hang Dog
>
> Sounds to me like you just want to apply more spin for your own agenda.
> You obviously didn't bother to read the report. FWIW I'm not defending
> the report because I don't know enough about the situation on the USA
> side of the sea. But you obviously have no idea either.
>
There are far too many guns in that society for them ever to get rid of
them. However, as several 1000 of them get killed each year its a way of
improving the gene pool.