Patters

Protection Or Peril? Gun Possession Of Questionable Value In An Assault, Study Finds

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.

2000army

Lol ..... look at the controls used in this study ... what a joke.

Penn study: Carrying gun raises risk of getting shot | Philadelphia Inquirer | 10/12/2009

PatsWSB47

From the article:

Criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University said the Penn results can be explained by the fact that people who are at risk of being shot are also more likely to buy or carry guns. Such people might have dangerous jobs or belong to a street gang or be involved in the illicit drug trade, for example.

Adding corrections for race, neighborhood, sex and even drug trade ties, as Branas did, "doesn't alter the underlying flaw in the reasoning," Kleck said.

In an e-mail, Kleck explained his view with an analogy. "It is precisely as if medical researchers found that insulin use is more common among persons who suffer from diabetes than among those who are not diabetic (something that is most assuredly true), and concluded that insulin use raises one's risk of diabetes."

Patters

It sounds like a reasonable approach to a difficult topic to research. Statistics is a very complex subject, but it seems like overall I think his approach was this. (1) You and I are neighbors, (2) you have a gun, I don't, (3) we both get shot. Obviously, statistically we cancel each other out. But, if you try to do the same thing about 677 people, things don't even out as much.

As far as the control group goes, the article makes no sense. It makes it sound like the control group was in place before the shootings, but that's obviously not the case. It's a poorly written article.

Patters

Of course it alters the reasoning. If you factor in the statistical likelihood, for instance, that drug dealers are more likely to be shot than non drug dealers, it will lead to an adjustment in the results.

Kleck's analogy is based on his careless disregard for the fact that the study does consider various factors, but what makes it funny is that the analogy doesn't even work. Look at this paraphrase of it:

"It is precisely as if medical researchers found that gun wounds are more common among gun owners than among those who don't own guns, and conclude that owning a gun increases one's risk of suffering a gun wound." That's exactly what the researchers concluded. Kleck doesn't seem too bright.

2000army

gang bangers carrying guns were the ones shot probably over drugs

Mrs.PatsFanInVa

Unless they were innocent bystanders, of course.

Real World

Haha, as an aside, I like how the writer lists "drug dealer" as an occupation.

The study is garbage. Look at how they did their calculations, and who they included.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Patters

They don't show their calculations, so how can you say the study is flawed. They take into account the different neighborhoods, employments status, etc. What's flawed about that? The control group it sounds like was designed to add a layer of accuracy rather than simply count up who was more likely to get shot, those with guns or those without guns. Personally, I think it's commonsense that gun owners are more likely to get shot than those who don't own guns, though there are many reasons for that (which the study did take into account, but we don't know to what degree).

ljuneau

Your common sense makes no sense at all. It does nothing to separate those who obtain guns for home protection, hunting, etc, and those that obtain guns for illegal activity. The numbers would come out very differently under these two categories. The flaw is lumping them all together.

__________________
“If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else's expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves.” ~ Thomas Sowell