Protection or Peril? Gun Possession of Questionable Value in an Assault
September 30, 2009(PhysOrg.com) -- 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.'"
Source: University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine (news : web)
Sep 07, 2009
Would that not suggest that it is safer to possess a firearm?
That aside, did they factor in Concealed Firearms? If the shooter shot a person with a concealed firearm then the possession of said firearm is irrelevant imop.
"Learning how to live healthy lives alongside guns will require more studies such as this one.”
It is very simple to live a healthy life with a gun; I’ve done it for years. Guns are not health risks. If you handle guns with care, as everyone should, and do not point them at people then they do not hurt or kill other people.
Educate people on how to handle them in the proper way and the problem is solved, for law abiding citizens anyways. As for criminals, that is what Law enforcement officers are for...
What A load of BS...
If you ACTUALLY want to resolve where or not guns are protective (preventative), take a look at violent crime rates in cities with and without the most restrictive gun control, and those with and without concealed carry and "make-my-day" type laws.
As an aside, these studies have already been done, and last I checked, across the board, the cities with highest violent crime and home-intrusion rates are those with the most restrictive gun control.
Do the research for yourself. D.C. being, of course, the gold standard of poor gun legislation results.
The DC residents should thank the Supreme Court for overturning the unconstitutional laws preventing people from protecting themselves there.
/sarcasm.
That might be true, but you can't make any argument either way. It's very likely that those cities have strong gun control because of the crime, not the other way around.
Actually, if you look at the situation statistically, gun control laws have little to no effect on crime rates. They don't make a significant impact one way or the other.
The other side of this coin is that if you are not trained and ready to kill someone else then, in all likely hood, someone will take your gun off you and use it on you or someone else.
Having a gun that you cannot reach before you are held up is not of much use to you. From this one can deduce that you are just as well off not having the gun as having it. Furthermore, reaching for a gun when you should be reaching for the sky may well end up in you getting dead. Having a gun is fine in my opinion but letting some criminal take it off you is not fine. So if there is little chance of you being able to use it before they do then don't carry it and maybe you will be saving your own life and some one else's life as well.
This study ignores the human behavior, and then concludes the GUN is the thing that makes people get shot, when there are all sorts of other complex factors that aren't even considered.
Plus it looks only at people who got SHOT. How about the tens of thousands of people who carry guns, and DON'T get shot? This is completely absurd (at least from the perspective of a street cop).
WHAT A JOKE!!! Maybe they should stick to medicine, and I'll stick to investigating murders.
There really should be a non-lethal, long-range device for disabling people, (like the Taser, but longer range and more modern) and the government should force everyone to exchange their handguns to such. Thereafter the mere possession of a handgun should give a sentence longer than what you get for the possession of 10k of cocaine.
A life terminating device with no undo button (i.e. a hand gun) in the hands of non-professionals is a joke, but it is too depressing to even smile. There should be no hand guns on American soil.
While I just don't get this study, the fact remains those who own guns or their families are far more likely to be shot. Here in Fla we have 10-20 kids/yr being shot by their parent's, other's guns just due to playing with them. Facts are far more people shoot themselves, others accidentally than get shot by others when they don't have a gun. That doesn't include suicides from people who own guns or their family members.
Fact is if someone has a gun to rob, etc you and you go for a gun, you are far more likely to get shot. Guns are only likely to help if you have yours out first and use it.
Overall those who own guns or their families are far more likely to be shot or die from guns. Deal with it.
According to National Crime Victimization Surveys, guns are used to thwart a crime nearly 2 million times each year. That's 128 times the number of murders. In other words, guns are used for good far more than they are used for evil.
Before some of you spout off, it might make sense to check into some facts about the topic.
As of 2000, Florida ranked #4 in population but ranked #21 in suicides. Since the right-to-carry law was enacted in Florida the following changes occured. The homicide rate dropped 36%, firearm homicides dropped 37%, and handgun homicides dropped 41%.
"Approximatey 11% of gun owners and 13% of handgun owners have used their firearms for protection from criminals at the rate of about 760,000 times a year." "There are also two million defensive gun uses per year."
"After Washington DC enacted their handgun ban, their homicide rate rose 200% while the overall U.S. rate only rose 12%."
"Of the 6.3 million violent crimes of rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault only 8% involved firearms."
Good... Bad... I'm the guy with the gun!
That would work except, here in the real world, it's ridiculous to to suggest that just by banning something it's going to go away. In that case guns are only going to be in the hands of criminals (who obviously don't care what the government bans).
Boy, that sounds safe!
sorry but, you don't know what you're talking about. Criminals should understand that crime is a very dangerous business.
The supreme court is getting ready to review a challenge of the Chicago ban. Liberal fantasizers are hoping it will open the door for their Disneyland Weltanschüung. Usually these unresolvable arguments arise when there's something else going on we're not supposed to be arguing about. But what? All those unemployed losing their benefits for good after the holidays?
this is not to say there isn't SOME truth in the study, as any completely faked study will only render the study not only useless but leave the 'funder' open to criticism. but half truths are designed not for enlightenment , but deception. so called 'liberals' who are nothing of the sort, want to prevent the massive ownership of guns, by restricting the supply of weapons, to be done by 'passing laws' themselves enforced with gun holding 'responsible' police who enforce 'law' as made by a federal government owned by the banking cartel. liberals devise this study to support passage of law. that is all this study is. half truth to pass laws. waste of time.
From the looks of that, Branas couldn't structure a hypothesis properly to save his life, armed or not. Like so many people people pretending to be scientists these days he uses his position to advocate for his ideological prejudices rather than generating useful new knowledge.
That's dumb, there is no money to be made in just being liberal.
I could see saying something like "liberals funded by insurance companies that want to reduce the amount spent on people wounded by guns," but even that is ridiculous. There just isn't money to be made in gun control.
If a baby is raised in a good home that child will not need a gun to feel in control. In general poverty and lack of opportunities forces some children into crime and a gun just gives them that illusion of control. Yes, some people don't need to be poor to start a life of crime but they usually have had experiences and bad values pushed on them.
Idea: Let's try fixing some of America's more serious social problems so children don't grow up into a life of crime.
We decide what to do with the gun, not the other way around.
"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."
I think most shootings are not random at all, so calling random citizens doesn't make sense.
Secondly:
"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."
Now there's a hard choice: say I'm walking around with a gun, shooting people. Some people have a gun, some don't. Isn't it "natural" to shoot the ones with a gun first, since they pose the biggest threat?
Seems that they spent a lot of time finding out what everybody outside the US already knows.
In my grandfather's time they used to call a handgun an "equalizer", and it had earned that moniker for good reason. Throw in the fact that not only does it take time for the police to arrive (if summoned), SCOTUS and various state supreme courts have ruled that the police have no duty to respond or protect any individual citizen (only society as a whole). What other option does average-sized peace loving person have when an aggressive ne'er-do-well thrusts himself upon the scene?
Cops are well trained in their use and are supervised as to thier emotional/mental health (start acting crazy and they take the gun away!). The general public carrying guns are not. Therein lies the real problem...
Keeping in mind our founding fathers were revolutionaries is it any wonder that when organizing a new government that they made rules that said. 1) We have the freedom of speach and may freely speak poorly of our government if it displeases us 2)We may arm ourselves, we will not be rendered powerless 3)We may not be held without cause, we must be told what we have done and you must under the law and before our peers prove we have done wrong and deserve to be punished.
The second amendment is not there for hunting, and protecting your home from your fellow man may be a side benifit. The primary intent of the second amendment is that if our government slides into tyranny when it seeks to deny its citzens basic rights, is that we not be powerless to stop these actions.
Throughout the world we are known for our freedom of speach, to speak poorly of our government if we so choose. While this is rare and precious the truely amazing part of our Constitution is that if we as a people decide through the 1st amendment that we need to act, then under second amendment we have both the power and authority to do so.
It is an individual freedom.
That is a 100% faulty deduction. The real deduction is, that if you are going to carry a gun, you need to be trained and willing/prepared to use it. And this is 100% true and as a gun advocate I endorse such a stance. IF you decide to become a gun owner it is your responsibility to get proper training, otherwise you must be prepared to accept the consequences (your child accessing it, having it taken,etc)
I only want someone to have a gun if they are going to learn how to use it properly; safety first, then proper carry/access, and finally accuracy. Most citizens who are serious about having a gun for SD/HD do this, because they realize they are otherwise just a danger to themself and others
But there would be zero mass murders.
Six of one ... and which half dozen is better for society?
http://www.purege...ong.html
Yes what I wrote is over simplified because to explain all the ways a human can become damaged takes a couple of book shelves to do. It is just one of the basic reasons.
American culture puts too much emphasis on failing or succeeding as a individual. A gun is one way criminals think they can succeed, and everyone else thinks as protection. Maybe it is time to grow up and live as a society that cares about it members. Then guns wouldn't be needed except by law officers.
According to otto1923 everyone is a criminal and is born so. This makes the study of criminals valid.
But you are right it is flawed because no one cares to change or make an effort. I say we all stock up on food and weapons and blast anyone that comes near our property. Kill or be killed.