And the 2009 Junk Science for gun research goes to...

Status
Not open for further replies.

willbrink

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
605
Your hard earned tax money at work. Junk science at a level that makes some of the prior politically motivated anti gun "research" look Nobel Worthy:


September 30, 2009

Penn Study Asks, Protection or Peril? Gun Possession of Questionable Value in an Assault

Those possessing gun in assault situation 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those not possessing one

PHILADELPHIA – 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.’”

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors are also indebted to numerous dedicated individuals at the Philadelphia Police, Public Health, Fire, and Revenue Departments as well as DataStat Inc, who collaborated on the study.

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2009/09/gun-possession-safety/
 
My favorite part:
"Learning how to live healthy lives alongside guns will require more studies such as this one"

Makes guns sound like a disease we can't find a cure for.
 
How much you wanna bet that they included the perpetrators of the assaults in this research? As in, a person A uses a gun to assault person B, person B shoots person A. According to this study, that counts toward a person who carries a gun being shot.
 
Ok sure....

....And how many of those people had legal carry permits?

How about we don't do studies on a pack of gang members with a live by the gun mentality, and start doing these studies on law abiding, rational, non-inner city, legal permit holders. I'm sure the result would be very different.

I mean really people.
 
I am interested in your assessment of the methodology and conclusions of this study. Just calling it junk science doesn't necessarily make it so (even though I strongly suspect it is).
 
the only reason for conducting a study like this is to be able to skew the results in whatever political view they are trying to push. Anyone who spends enough time around a University knows that professors don't just invent studies in their heads to better society. They do it for money, prestige, and to further their political agendas. The best thing I learned with my Poly Sci degree is that professors just want to "teach" their own beliefs.
 
From The Linked Article said:
We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault ...

[size=+3]DUH![/size]

Everyone in this group had been shot. All it tells me that 4.45 times as many of these victims carried a gun than didn't. The study says nothing about how many people who are assaulted get shot. Armed or not. It says nothing about how many don't get shot because they were able to defend themselves, or the simple display of an arm scared off the assailant.

Sheesh!

Woody
 
... Makes guns sound like a disease we can't find a cure for.

That's no accident.

If "they" can normalize the idea that firearm injury/fatality is a public health issue they justify all sorts of "epidemiological" efforts to eradicate the threat. :barf:


<--- Public Health professional who encountered this midset throughout grad school and still sees it in professional circles today. :(
 
Cowboy, I agree with you. They looked ONLY at the people who got shot, so they weeded out everyone who DIDN"T get shot. As we all know, the vast majority of defensive gun use results in NO shots fired, all of those defensive gun uses were ignored from the get go. What a stupid study.

I also agree that until these researchers take out the gang element, these studies will never be valid. This is like saying that locking your doors is more likely to result in them being kicked in by surveying 600 people who had their doors kicked in and finding that most of them were locked at the time.
 
GIGO!!!

GIGO...Computer acronym meaning "Garbage In Garbage Out". If the information you put into a computer is Garbage then no matter how elaborately it may be analyzed the output will still be Garbage!!!

The writers of this tripe masquerading as scholarship overlooked this one simple question...How many people in Philadelphia during the three years of the study were not assaulted because either they or a companion had a Penn. CCP at the time of the would be assault? You don't actually have to use a gun ( I.e. shoot someone or even brandish it ) for it to stop or prevent a crime!

One thing that is maddeningly difficult to ascertain is how often muggers decide not to assault certain would be victims because they perceive that the intended victims were or might be armed. There is a body of literature ( for example read Mas Ayoob's books and articles about this ) that strongly suggest that predatory criminals are like predatory animals; they can sense weakness and strength in potential prey and normally choose to only attack the weak and helpless. It has even been postulated that the mere act of carrying a concealed weapon will reduce your risk of being attack because your confidence in your ability to defend your self will show up in your body language.

At best this study only proves that a gun is not a magic amulet that will fend off attacks by its simple possession.


On last thought... Living in Texas for 26 years taught me that gold plated BS is till BS no matter how shinny it may be. :cuss:
 
The study says 6% of 677 people shot were carrying guns. That must mean that 94% of the people shot were not carrying guns.

That's 41 people shot carrying guns v. 636 shot not carrying guns. Seems to me, of the 677 people shot, those without guns were shot 16 times more often than those with guns.

Hmmm.
 
How much you wanna bet that they included the perpetrators of the assaults in this research?
Along with shootouts between gang members and rival drug dealers.

....And how many of those people had legal carry permits?
What do you bet they don't even address that question?

Nor the corrolary -- how many crimes were stopped by a permit holder, without a shot being fired?
 
Somewhat along the lines of what GeneralGeoff said, How many people who were shot were the attacker vs. how many were the victim? An armed attacker getting shot is a lot different than an innocent victim getting shot.
 
At the very least, you'd have to correct for demographic.

Cops, private security officers, armored car crews and others handling large amounts of cash, et al. would need to be excluded. They weren't shot because they were carrying; they were carrying because they have a high probability of being shot.

Then, you'd need to exclude those involved in two-way assaults, criminal activity, etc., like gang members, etc.

You'd have to separate those who were carrying legally, and those who were carrying a gun as part of their criminal activities.

My guess is, the numbers would look quite different if you asked, "Of people assaulted, who were not part of a special demographic, or involved in any criminal activity, how many were shot? How many were carrying guns? How many were carrying and were not shot?" Etc.
 
Lawful civilian CCW, active criminal, gangbanger, victim of domestic violence, armored car driver, bounty hunter would all be treated the same. That's the beginning of what's completely bogus about using these numbers to establish a causal relationship, where carrying the gun causes one to get shot.

One could just as soon demonstrate that carrying rain gear in your car one day causes a higher probability of getting wet that day, or that being bitten by a rattlesnake causes one to go hiking.
 
I'd bet of the 41 "carrying residents" who were "shot in an assault", a good number of them were involved in criminal activity at the time. I'd really like to see numbers for "carrying" law abiding homeowners or CCL holders who were shot, if there are any.

Oh gee, no data on that. :banghead: Figures.
 
So this study supports disarming police officers? According to this study it would make them less likely to be shot and, after all, officer safety always comes first.

This study comes from the same people who brought us such stellar articles as:

Getting past the "f" word in federally funded public health research.
(Advocating using public funds to fund studies designed to promote gun control legislation.)

Alcohol consumption, alcohol outlets, and the risk of being assaulted with a gun.
(Proposes banning possession of firearms near where alcohol is sold)

Homicide and geographic access to gun dealers in the United States.
(Proposes resricting the number of FFLs as a method to reduce gun violence)

Weapons in the lives of battered women
Sex differences in the perpetrator-victim relationship among emergency department patients presenting with nonfatal firearm-related injuries.
(Gun owners are more likely to beat their wives)

That is enough for now; search "Wiebe DJ"[Author] or "Branas CC"[Author] (include the quotation marks) in PubMed if you want to see a bunch more from this same group.
 
ConstitutionCowboy said:
DUH!

Everyone in this group had been shot. All it tells me that 4.45 times as many of these victims carried a gun than didn't. The study says nothing about how many people who are assaulted get shot. Armed or not. It says nothing about how many don't get shot because they were able to defend themselves, or the simple display of an arm scared off the assailant.

Sheesh!

Woody
Exactly!

(Gangbanger more likely to be shot than the general population)+(Gangbanger more likely to carry a gun than the general population)=(Antigunner concludes gun makes you more likely to get shot)
 
The study says 6% of 677 people shot were carrying guns. That must mean that 94% of the people shot were not carrying guns.

That's 41 people shot carrying guns v. 636 shot not carrying guns. Seems to me, of the 677 people shot, those without guns were shot 16 times more often than those with guns.

Hmmm.

Your conclusion does not follow from your data. Those without guns are possibly more plentiful than those without. Suppose only 1% of Philadelphians carried guns. Then you would conclude that people carrying guns were shot at a higher rate than those who were not. But suppose 10% of Philadelphians carried guns. Then you would conclude that people carrying guns were shot at a lower rate than those who were not. This is essentially what they appear to have done--they attempted to establish an average rate at which Philadelphians carry guns. And yes, I suppose it is accurate that people who are carrying guns are shot at a higher rate than those who are not.

The problem with this is the conclusions they draw. (As others have pointed out), it seems very likely that people who are at high risk of being shot are more likely to carry a gun than those who are not. Thus the data they have collected is insufficient to conclude that being armed makes one more likely to be shot.

--

I think their conclusions are based on flawed statistics, but lets take care not to use flawed statistics ourselves.
 
asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting.

They expected honest answers? That's hilarious. Of course almost nobody in that anti-gun metropolis will admit to owning a firearm to some surveyor. So their result comes up with an exceptionally low ownership rate. They then compare this with the percentage of gun owners known to be shot. Because there are more alleged gun owners in the shooting victim pool than the control pool, they assume that having a gun makes you more likely to be shot. It's insane, and you can bet your grandma's favorite chair that it was politically motivated.

hey attempted to establish an average rate at which Philadelphians carry guns.

Given the enormous risks of criminal sanction Philadelphians run from carrying a CCW, the chances of getting a good survey on this question are ZERO. There's no way to do it. It's not like asking people if they smoke, or even if they drink.

Moreover, since we're talking about one of the nation's most notorious urban cesspools, the would need to differentiate between those who are carrying for illegal business transactions and those who are law abiding citizens. Otherwise all they're really going to show is that drug dealers and pimps get shot at a higher rate than other people.

At most, what this study shows is that if you carry a gun in an east coast sleazepit, you are more likely to be a criminal. And for that reason you are more likely to get shot.
 
Last edited:
“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?”

Of course it will not safeguard against harm.

Look at the facts: People with cars are hunreds, if not thousands of times more likely to die in a car accident than those without cars. So do cars with airbags really safeguard us or provide a false sense of security?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top