http://www.newscientist.com/article/...nd-killed.htmlCarrying 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.
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.
I represent the angry, gun toting meat eating people. ~ Denis Leary
The same shepherd that protects the flock leads them to the slaughterhouse.
Brilliant! People who eat red meat and candy are far likelier to gain weight - and die - than those who eat celery.People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed
That's the same kind of shit CR/Cowpunk spews whenever gun control comes up.
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? [Henry David Thoreau]
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.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.
Branas is well educated and published. He is obviously respected among his peers.
Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature.... Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.
- H Keller
It makes sense to me.Originally Posted by jwreck
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...nd-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.
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.It makes sense to me.
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.
I represent the angry, gun toting meat eating people. ~ Denis Leary
The same shepherd that protects the flock leads them to the slaughterhouse.
Freedom&Liberty (02-05-2012)
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?
I represent the angry, gun toting meat eating people. ~ Denis Leary
The same shepherd that protects the flock leads them to the slaughterhouse.
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 (02-05-2012), jwreck (02-05-2012)
I want a gun turret on my SUV.
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? [Henry David Thoreau]
Sparkly Mary (02-06-2012)
I want a BB gun mini gun. They actually make those.
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
I represent the angry, gun toting meat eating people. ~ Denis Leary
The same shepherd that protects the flock leads them to the slaughterhouse.
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.
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.
The results of the "study" don't upset me, the publication of study itself upsets me.
Sure looks like a logical fallacy to 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.
They considered one variable and then called it a study and had it published in a "scientific journal".
Yes, that's the whole point.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.
I represent the angry, gun toting meat eating people. ~ Denis Leary
The same shepherd that protects the flock leads them to the slaughterhouse.
Sparkly Mary (02-06-2012)
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.
jwreck (02-05-2012)
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.
Being a liberal increases your chances of being shot.
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? [Henry David Thoreau]
Given the examples of Reagan and George Wallace, so does being a conservative.
Today we're using the commie jerk, douchebag example.
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? [Henry David Thoreau]
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks