Exhibit A against the veneration of "scientists"

[jwreck]

Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed

Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.

It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.

Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

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."

Daniel Webster, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore, Maryland, thinks it is near-sighted to consider only the safety of gun owners and not their communities. "It affects others a heck of a lot more," he says.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html
Articles in publications such as New Scientist you would think would be scientifically sound and peer vetted. You would expect them to be Based soundly on good research. You would expect to be apolitical. You would expect them to be free of logical fallacies. Instead, you get crap like the above that is then repeated and believed by the average moron because its all sciency and stuff.

:nonono:

[Freedom&Liberty]

People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmedBrilliant! People who eat red meat and candy are far likelier to gain weight - and die - than those who eat celery.

That's the same kind of shit CR/Cowpunk spews whenever gun control comes up.

[Alberto_Balsalm]

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

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.

I'd suggest that one important thing that Branas should consider would be what motivated these individuals to start carrying firearms. To elaborate, it could very well be that they chose to do so based on what they felt to be credible threats against their life, but were shot anyways. However, I get the impression that he will not.

[AlbertJ]

Branas is well educated and published. He is obviously respected among his peers.

[optimus]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html
Articles in publications such as New Scientist you would think would be scientifically sound and peer vetted. You would expect them to be Based soundly on good research. You would expect to be apolitical. You would expect them to be free of logical fallacies. Instead, you get crap like the above that is then repeated and believed by the average moron because its all sciency and stuff.

:nonono:

It makes sense to me. :shrug: It's only logical, of course people who carry guns are more likely to get shot or killed. Just like people who drive are more likely to get in a car crash than people who don't drive.

[jwreck]

It makes sense to me. :shrug: It's only logical, of course people who carry guns are more likely to get shot or killed. Just like people who drive are more likely to get in a car crash than people who don't drive.Science is often counter-intuitive. Surely you see the flaws in his premise.

Most American soldiers killed are Christians. Therefore, it is more dangerous to be a Christian soldier than a non-Christian soldier.

More people get sick when its cold outside. Therefore the cold weather must make people sick.

Corelation is not causation.

[86Dùde]

Did the study determine if the gun carriers were legal carriers or were unlawful carriers included in the study? Pretty important to know that.

[jwreck]

Did the study determine if the gun carriers were legal carriers or were unlawful carriers included in the study? Pretty important to know that.Yeah right. That would have required integrity. :|


The study took place in Philadelphia. How many people legally carry guns in Philadelphia?

[86Dùde]

I think all states should just be open carry and we can just ditch this concealed nonsense. Very honest really.

Criminals don't open carry weapons.

[Freedom&Liberty]

I want a gun turret on my SUV.

[86Dùde]

I want a BB gun mini gun. They actually make those.

[jwreck]

Well the point is not really about guns, but that even "scientists" have biases that often comes out in their work.

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
― Richard P. Feynman

[optimus]

Science is often counter-intuitive. Surely you see the flaws in his premise.

Most American soldiers killed are Christians. Therefore, it is more dangerous to be a Christian soldier than a non-Christian soldier.

More people get sick when its cold outside. Therefore the cold weather must make people sick.

Corelation is not causation.

The sentences you listed are logical flaws, and a bit different from the conclusion reached in the study. Obviously correlation is not causation, but the study did not make the claim that the reason why people are more likely to get shot or get killed is because they carry a gun, they simply said that based on their study, folks who happened to carry a gun ended up with a higher probability of getting shot or killed. See the difference?

The results of the study shouldn't upset you. They aren't surprising, if you really think about it, and again, the results are not necessarily BECAUSE they carry a gun. It could be from other factors.

[86Dùde]

I'd like to see the how the peeps they used in their study were broken down in a variety of ways. Economic, age, gender, race, convictions, religion, that kind of stuff.

[jwreck]

The sentences you listed are logical flaws, and a bit different from the conclusion reached in the study. Obviously correlation is not causation, but the study did not make the claim that the reason why people are more likely to get shot or get killed is because they carry a gun, they simply said that based on their study, folks who happened to carry a gun ended up with a higher probability of getting shot or killed. See the difference?

The results of the study shouldn't upset you. The results of the "study" don't upset me, the publication of study itself upsets me.


'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.

Sure looks like a logical fallacy to me.
They considered one variable and then called it a study and had it published in a "scientific journal".

They aren't surprising, if you really think about it, and again, the results are not necessarily BECAUSE they carry a gun. It could be from other factors.Yes, that's the whole point.

[optimus]

Jwreck, most scientific studies include possible "explanations" or additional theories for the statistical findings of studies in the "conclusion" section of the report. Scientists know these explanations are pure speculation, but they include them for the reader to help wrap their heads around various findings. Scientists know that speculation has no part in science.

We basically agree.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Most American soldiers killed are Christians. Therefore, it is more dangerous to be a Christian soldier than a non-Christian soldier.

More people get sick when its cold outside. Therefore the cold weather must make people sick.

Corelation is not causation.

True, but there is no logical connection between religion and wartime fatality, or temperature and sickness.

There IS a logical connection between carrying a gun and getting shot. If a lot more people who carry guns die of gun shot wounds, that likely means something.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Being a liberal increases your chances of being shot.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Given the examples of Reagan and George Wallace, so does being a conservative.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Today we're using the commie jerk, douchebag example.

[Cyclone Ranger]

ie, a douchebag who goes around calling people "commie jerks," making a fool out of himself all over the Internet.

[jwreck]

True, but there is no logical connection between religion and wartime fatality, or temperature and sickness.

There IS a logical connection between carrying a gun and getting shot. If a lot more people who carry guns die of gun shot wounds, that likely means something.Sorry, but if you can't see the flaws in that article I can't help you. Of course being someone who thinks economics is science your opinion isn't worth much anyway.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Sorry, but you haven't provided evidence of any such flaws. The mere fact the study is correlational doesn't constitute a flaw.

[jwreck]

Sorry, but you haven't provided evidence of any such flaws. The mere fact the study is correlational doesn't constitute a flaw.Fine.

"Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed" False. That's not what was studied.'

"Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found."Again, not what was studied.

"It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens." True statement. It would also be the only scientific way to demonstrate what the article is reporting the study found.

"So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood." This statement shows that the only sample was people who were already shot. Therefore, you cannot conclude that people who carry guns are more likely to be shot. All you can conclude is that those who were shot in Philadelphia during this time period were more likely to be carrying a gun. This is an important difference.

"Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens." Incorrect. While I'd have to see the actual numbers (that are conveniently omitted) to correct the math, the flaw in the premise can again be pointed out. 4.5 times more people who were shot while carrying a gun does not equate to carrying a gun makes you 4.5 times more likely to be shot.

Happy now?

[Cyclone Ranger]

"Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed" False. That's not what was studied.'
Bullshit. That's exactly what was studied.


Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

The problem for you isn't any deficiency in the study; it's simply that you don't like the conclusion, whether or it's true or not.

[jwreck]

Bullshit. That's exactly what was studied.



Etc. Etc. Etc.

The problem for you isn't any deficiency in the study; it's simply that you don't like the conclusion, whether or it's true or not.
:lol:
Yeah that's it. Keep on spinning. I noticed you didn't actually address the points I made.

[Cyclone Ranger]

I just did. Let's start with that one. You didn't address it.

[jwreck]

"So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood." This statement shows that the only sample was people who were already shot. Therefore, you cannot conclude that people who carry guns are more likely to be shot. All you can conclude is that those who were shot in Philadelphia during this time period were more likely to be carrying a gun. This is an important difference.

"Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens." Incorrect. While I'd have to see the actual numbers (that are conveniently omitted) to correct the math, the flaw in the premise can again be pointed out. 4.5 times more people who were shot while carrying a gun does not equate to carrying a gun makes you 4.5 times more likely to be shot.

Happy now?See. Not the same as what was stated.

[jwreck]

I guess you could say that its what they wanted to study. :shrug:

[Cyclone Ranger]

4.5 times more people who were shot while carrying a gun does not equate to carrying a gun makes you 4.5 times more likely to be shot.
Yes, it equates to exactly that. He controlled for other variables like ethnicity, age, SES, etc.

[jwreck]

Yes, it equates to exactly that. He controlled for other variables like ethnicity, age, SES, etc.Sigh, see this is what lets you believe that economics is science. :nonono:

[jwreck]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ignoring-a-common-cause.html

[jwreck]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html

[Cyclone Ranger]

BS. He's already controlled for other potential causes.

[jwreck]

Really? I didn't see anything mentioned about criminal activity. Legal vs illegal carries. Not to mention, again, that when your sample is people that are already shot its a biased sample.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Did you actually read the monograph?

[Cyclone Ranger]

Biased HOW, particularly after the whole panoply of sociological variables were controlled for?

Moreover, did you actually read the monograph to see whether legal vs illegal carries were taken into account?

[jwreck]

Biased HOW, particularly after the whole panoply of sociological variables were controlled for?

Moreover, did you actually read the monograph to see whether legal vs illegal carries were taken into account?I looked and did not find any link to the monograph. Did you see it? I'd love to see the actual data.

I'm not sure how you don't understand the bias. If the only people studied were people who were already shot, you CANNOT state that it is a reflection of the population as a whole.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Do a Google search. It's probably online somewhere.

There is no reason to think that the shooting victims studied were any different than anyone else who carries a gun. All conceivable confounding variables were controlled for.

[jwreck]

Do a Google search. It's probably online somewhere.

There is no reason to think that the shooting victims studied were any different than anyone else who carries a gun. All conceivable confounding variables were controlled for.Jesus christ you are fucking dense and/or know nothing about science.

[9ball8]

One would need to eliminate criminal activity and history from the victim involved in the shootings. IOW, is the guy who packs strictly for protection of his legal assets or person, more likely to get shot? I could see where he would, if he were packing. Doesn't mean he fails to ventilate his attacker as well, but if he has no weapon, it might be much more likely that he hands over his wallet and "no one gets hurt", as the mugger would say. Hypothesis: most cops are all for this, and would prefer longer prison sentences instead of innocent citizens getting shot, even if the criminal is also shot in all encounters.

Especially in a violent neighborhood, any subject who engages in illegal activity and uses a firearm to back it up, should be thrown out of the study. That is more a matter of when, not if, they'll get shot. As a study, it isn't bad as long as the authors intend it to be a starting point for peer review and elaboration. IOW, as long as qualified scientists study the curve ball I mentioned and others that come to mind. I'd like to see a sample closer to 6 thousand, lengthen the time span and control for a persistently high crime rate.

Suggesting we all pack would probably be a wash. While it might help prevent ambush attacks or home invasions, it would lead to bloodbaths in other circumstances. Take an alcohol/drug fueled party, with ill-humored strangers wandering into the scene. Maybe the bad guys get theirs, but a lot of other people are going to get shot in the circular cross-fire. A piss-poor trade off, IMO.

[jwreck]

It results in a biased sample, a non-random sample[1] of a population (or non-human factors) in which all individuals, or instances, were not equally likely to have been selected.[2] If this is not accounted for, results can be erroneously attributed to the phenomenon under study rather than to the method of sampling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias

[jwreck]

You know what, if you can't see the error in the sample no amount of documentation I provide will change that. If the sample does not include people who were carrying guns who were not shot, the conclusions are biased. Its as simple as that.

[Cyclone Ranger]

You did not read the study, so you have no idea whether or not the sample was biased. You are simply pretending the sample is somehow biased without evidence because you fear any threat to gun ownership.

That's how irrationally attached to guns you are.

[86Dùde]

WTF Cowpunk?

[Freedom&Liberty]

The study is biased because it implies that a small subset of young, irresponsible gun owners in large urban areas is indicative of the population as a whole. It's not ethical or fair to equate millions of responsible, mature gun owners, like 86dude and jwreck, to immature, irresponsible, gun possessing gang members in Philadelphia or Baltimore.

[BooRadley]

I really, really don't understand why some liberals are so hell-bent on banning guns. It's a horrible idea and completely unproductive, and no matter how many times that's been proven, they still clamour for it.

[jwreck]

You did not read the study, so you have no idea whether or not the sample was biased. You are simply pretending the sample is somehow biased without evidence because you fear any threat to gun ownership.

That's how irrationally attached to guns you are.You don't even understand what I mean when I say its a biased sample. :nonono:

[Zordar]

I really, really don't understand why some liberals are so hell-bent on banning guns. It's a horrible idea and completely unproductive, and no matter how many times that's been proven, they still clamour for it.It's based upon some twisted idea of "protecting" society, one that's been so ingrained in their DNA, they just can't help but quiver and quake at the idea of anybody outside of law enforcement possessing a weapon. It's been hardwired in, and no amount of data will change their minds. Many liberals are also like this in regard to certain social programs, what constitutes victimhood, etc...

Of course, conservatives have their fair share of neurosis, as well. Regulation != communism no matter how many times you repeat it, and a study suggesting that kids would do better in a two-parent (gay) household than in an orphanage, isn't necessarily "bad data" or "politics masquerading as science;" not liking a conclusion doesn't mean it is wrong, no matter how ooky it makes you feel..

(not that science isn't politicized, of course; I happen to believe it is incredibly politicized right now. It's the inability to even consider the validity of alternate views I'm talking about)

[Cyclone Ranger]

The study is biased because it implies that a small subset of young, irresponsible gun owners in large urban areas is indicative of the population as a whole. It's not ethical or fair to equate millions of responsible, mature gun owners, like 86dude and jwreck, to immature, irresponsible, gun possessing gang members in Philadelphia or Baltimore.

Bullshit. It openly states that based on a more than adequate sample group, carrying a gun makes it a lot more likely you'll get shot, whether you're responsible or not, young or not, urban or not, etc.

That's very fair and common sense. Your only response has been to attack a peer-reviewed study you haven't read on bogus methodological grounds. Newsflash: no matter how old or responsible you may be, if you smoke, you'll very likely develop cancer.

Similarly, if you carry a gun, it's a lot more likely you'll get shot, offensively or defensively.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Read deeper, grasshopper. Follow the links in the article and learn.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Don't be a schmuck, ancient master. You haven't read the study.

Please note the following:


We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous," Branas says. "This study is a beginning."

[jwreck]

Bullshit. It openly states that based on a more than adequate sample group, carrying a gun makes it a lot more likely you'll get shot, whether you're responsible or not, young or not, urban or not, etc.

That's very fair and common sense. Your only response has been to attack a peer-reviewed study you haven't read on bogus methodological grounds. Newsflash: no matter how old or responsible you may be, if you smoke, you'll very likely develop cancer.

Similarly, if you carry a gun, it's a lot more likely you'll get shot, offensively or defensively.Do you not understand that 100% of people in this sample have been shot?

[Cyclone Ranger]

Which is the only way to study the statistical associations of gunshot victims. There is nothing 'biased' about that, particularly when confounding variables have been accounted for.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Try the very first sentence, dumbass.


a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.

Follow the link in the article to - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17402-treat-killing-like-a-disease-to-slash-shootings.html


Shootings and killings in deprived areas of Chicago and Baltimore
...
says that norm-changing is key to the programme because otherwise, the myth persists that boys can't help but be violent.

"People believe that boys are doomed to be aggressive, especially males of colour and poverty, and that's how boys must settle disputes," says Pollack. "But we now know it's the socialisation experience that creates this expectation, nurture rather than nature."What's happening in some communities in large cities isn't happening in small towns or rural areas. Arrogant AND ignorant is no way to go through life. Fix yourself.

[jwreck]

Which is the only way to study the statistical associations of gunshot victims. There is nothing 'biased' about that, particularly when confounding variables have been accounted for.YES BUT THAT"S NOT WHAT THE STUDY CLAIMS!!! OMG YOU ARE FUCKING DENSE!! Its conclusion is that carrying a gun makes you more likely to get shot, not that more gunshot victims carry guns. Anyway, I'm going to chalk this up as you being delibrately obtuse just to try and rile me up. I'm done talking to you about this.

[Cyclone Ranger]

If gunshot victims were more likely to carry guns than average, and confounding variables have been controlled for, we are justified in concluding that carrying a gun makes one more likely to get shot. It's that simple.

That isn't proof that carrying a gun causes one to get shot, but it is statistical substantiation. As the article said:


It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.