Eeeeeeehhhhhh?

I'd almost agree with that for someone who has zero firearm training, but for people like us, who understand the laws, understand the ramifications of taking a shot, understand that the first step in self defense is avoidance, I'd disagree..

The study pointed out that people who carry go into 'shady' areas just for kicks? .. What the hell? .. no.. we don't .. we avoid those areas, armed or not.. it's common sense..

I for one, do not act any differently armed or not.. but i'd like the opportunity to defend myself if a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Tx ever happens to me..

--Rob

While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates. Supporters of the Second Amendment shouldn't worry that the right to bear arms is under threat, however. "We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous," Branas says. "This study is a beginning."

Click to expand...

The classic fallacy of correlation equalling causation.

I realize that was a teaser synopsis, to get you to buy the article, but it gave no clue that it would contain useful information. Useful information would include a comparison to people who were carrying legally versus illegally, and those who were shot justifiably while committing crimes.

I'm not certain one could draw a useful conclusion from a data set that is restricted to a single high-crime urban area in the Northeast.

KBCraig said:

The classic fallacy of correlation equalling causation.

I realize that was a teaser synopsis, to get you to buy the article, but it gave no clue that it would contain useful information. Useful information would include a comparison to people who were carrying legally versus illegally, and those who were shot justifiably while committing crimes.

I'm not certain one could draw a useful conclusion from a data set that is restricted to a single high-crime urban area in the Northeast.

Click to expand...

The new FBI crime report pretty much kills a lot of this article anyway.. Hell look at Chicago and Rahm's moronic gun control.. they saw an 11% increase in violent crimes, while the national average is down.. hmm.. =)

AND, I believe this 'study' makes a LOT of assumptions about how WE act.. which are in error..

--Rob

I can conceive of situations where carrying could increase the odds of getting killed, but not those that are speculated in this article.

If a victim feels helpless to defend themselves they may appease the BG by giving up anything they want and POSSIBLY avoiding lethal violence. Based on this completely speculative premise, a person may have to decided if it worth it to submit to a theft, beating, rape, to yourself or others and live with that.... or attempt to defend yourself/others against the violation and risk a lethally violent reaction to your self defense.

Now ask me if I personally would choose to standby while myself and family are victimized or risk POSSIBLY escalating the (unknown) level of violence the BG is prepared to use by defending them/myself.

Same fallacy over and over again in these studies -- lump in the consensual violence (gangs, drugs, etc.) with the violence perpetrated on innocents and yhea, it looks like every person legally carrying is gonna die.

When you start with firearm deaths and work backwards, you see exactly what you'd expect to see -- mostly consensual violence.

Kinda like the firearm deaths of "children" -- several studies extended the definition of "child" up to the age of 25 in order to include the gang banger stats and viola! Children are dropping like flies from firearms!

O2

Echoing others. I'm not inclined to open the link. The same reverse causality problem. I.e. It's not the carrying that increases the odds. It's the thugs who carry legally or not who are already going into those situations that makes them more likely to get shot. Anyone see any actual "new" findings?

As I can tell the study did not differentiate lawful carry from criminal carry. That's pretty telling, isn't it?

A summary at http://phys.org/news173531867.html#jCp from 2009 only said this about 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.

I wonder how many of the people in this study who were "possessing a gun at the time of the shooting" were either gangbangers who were shot by other gangbangers, or armed robbers, home invaders or other types of criminals who were shot by cops or lawfully armed citizens, or even cops shot by criminals, for that matter.

Unfortunately, I've searched, but I can't find the study, to err, study... However, an epidemiologist with a bias could take any study and make it look bad. If they're a tenured PhD they won't even get a raised eyebrow if they took a sample of two people and said that anyone who drank Philly's tap water was 100% more likely to contract brain cancer, because the other one only drank soda all day long, and died during a diabetic coma before the study concluded.

They taught us in Middle School how to make a Graph, Chart, or statistics lean in your favor, these guys just took a lot longer classes on the subject. They also taught me how tabloids and other places make stories lean in there favor with the placement of a few precise words or removing just a few. My question is did they have anyone that was doing said "studies" that was even remotely familiar with the difference between lawful gun possession and possessing a gun while committing a crime. There is a diffrence.