2009 Study: Carrying a gun increases risk of getting killed!

[misconfig]

Like I said, this if from 2009 and I searched didn't find any results.

Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

 

[VUPDblue]

It would be interesting to see how many of the folks who were carrying and subsequently shot/killed were carrying legally...

 

[dross]

It doesn't say if they were carrying legally. It also doesn't say if it included people who carry as part of their job.

 

[dross]

It would be interesting to see how many of the folks who were carrying and subsequently shot/killed were carrying legally...

Jinx.

 

[misconfig]

Exactly, I agree with both of you, here is a link a synopsis of the study.

Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault -- Branas et al., 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099 -- American Journal of Public Health

Also, it seems like a fundamental link is training - do we know how familiar these people were with their firearms? I think carrying a gun without proper training could very well get you in a rather sticky situation.

 

[Jackson]

I would like to see some details on the gun carriers in these situations. Are these criminals carrying guns in to a situation to commit crimes against other criminals? (Gang related, drug related, etc. type situation.) Or are we talking about the average citizen with an LTCH/CCW inadvertently finding himself in a situation to use deadly force?

 

[Jackson]

In the time it took me to post my thoughts, 3 other people have already replied with the same basic question. I am just too slow.

 

[misconfig]

In the time it took me to post my thoughts, 3 other people have already replied with the same basic question. I am just too slow.

It's all good brother, it's a very valid point and we all as gun owners want irrefutable proof to these seemingly erroneous claims.

 

[eldirector]

I remember seeing that when it came out. As you all have mentioned, it doesn't distinguish between legal and illegal "carry", and does not segment out LEO vs non-LEO.

Also notice the (relatively) small sample size, all from Philadelphia (not exactly an "average" city for violence).

The study could have also found that criminals who use guns to commit crimes are more likely to get shot by their would-be victims, and cops are more likely to get shot by criminals than non-cops.

Anyone one have a link to the actual study?

 

[cosermann]

I don't have the time right now to analyze and debunk this study, but here is some additional information if anyone wants to:

Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault
Charles C. Branas, Therese S. Richmond, Dennis P. Culhane, Thomas R. Ten Have, and Douglas J. Wiebe
American Journal of Public Health, Nov 2009; 99: 2034 - 2040.

Try this link for a 7 page PDF file (fulltext):

AJPH -- Sign In Page <<==

If you read the study you will find that LEO-related shootings were excluded from the study.

 

[misconfig]

I don't have the time right now to analyze and debunk this study, but here is some additional information if anyone wants to:

Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault
Charles C. Branas, Therese S. Richmond, Dennis P. Culhane, Thomas R. Ten Have, and Douglas J. Wiebe
American Journal of Public Health, Nov 2009; 99: 2034 - 2040.

Try this link for a 7 page PDF file:
AJPH -- Sign In Page

Also, there is a follow up artcile entitled "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]FLAWS IN STUDY OF FIREARM POSSESSION AND RISK FOR ASSAULT
Wintemute Am J Public Health.2010; 100: 967-968 "[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]

AJPH -- Sign In Page

 

[rjstew317]

wasn't there a study that should places with fewer gun restrictions and laws had much lower violent crime rates? cant remember where i saw it, but i wonder how that little fact is explained?

 

[femurphy77]

It would be interesting to see how many of the folks who were carrying and subsequently shot/killed were carrying legally...

Huh? Uh, er, ah I uh. . . . . . That is we...uh don't uh see the relevance of your question! Guns are bad! M'kay?

 

[BlueEagle]

That study is pretty much every honest and scientifically valid study about guns in society, rjstew. I don't have the particulars of any one of them, but it seems like everytime somebody gets together all the facts and actually protrays them in a manner that isn't slanted, (doesn't ignore facts or mis-represent them,) they come up with the result that more guns in society will result in less crime. Wait, that can't be right....guns are evil, how can they reduce crime?

Also...

When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

Obviously the answer is to be defenseless. Being defenseless is the perfect defense! Defenseless individuals, unite! But wait, there is strength in numbers, and thats a kind of defence too, huh? Disband! Quickly! It'll be safer for you!

And if someone tries to rob you or hurt you, obviously the best thing to do is give them exactly what they want; because everybody knows that rewarding criminals for bad behavior is the best way to stop it.

/purple

 

[cosermann]

Also, there is a follow up artcile entitled "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]FLAWS IN STUDY OF FIREARM POSSESSION AND RISK FOR ASSAULT[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=+1][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Wintemute Am J Public Health.2010; 100: 967-968 "[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

AJPH -- Sign In Page

Thanks! Saved for later review.

 

[wrigleycub]

The article talks about the impracticality of assigning people guns for a period of time for the sake of making statistics. While it would be impractical to assign this, what about asking for volunteers? Me first!

 

[indytechnerd]

I don't have the time right now to analyze and debunk this study, but here is some additional information if anyone wants to:

Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault
Charles C. Branas, Therese S. Richmond, Dennis P. Culhane, Thomas R. Ten Have, and Douglas J. Wiebe
American Journal of Public Health, Nov 2009; 99: 2034 - 2040.

Try this link for a 7 page PDF file (fulltext):

AJPH -- Sign In Page <<==

If you read the study you will find that LEO-related shootings were excluded from the study.

Also, there is a follow up artcile entitled "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]FLAWS IN STUDY OF FIREARM POSSESSION AND RISK FOR ASSAULT
Wintemute Am J Public Health.2010; 100: 967-968 "[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]

AJPH -- Sign In Page

"This item requires a subscription to American Journal of Public Health Online. "

Anything for those of us who aren't paying subscribers?

 

[LCSOSgt11]

I should think that toting a gun is definitely not healthy for those that have felonious intent.

I question any "study" done by some "public health" entity. Public health is just that, clean drinking water, safe food, etc. Carrying a gun has nothing at all to do with public health.

For example, everyone is healthy around me when I carry. There are no accidents, etc. What becomes "unhealthy" is for some criminal to make a choice that would have the inevitable cause and effect.

 

[leftsock]

If we're looking for a good model of gun control reducing gun-related crimes and especially murders, California, Illinois, and DC have practically eliminated these violent acts. Just check out their statistics compared to other states.

Table 20 - Crime in the United States 2009

 

[CarmelHP]

I haven't looked at the critique yet, but the selection bias is using those who have been shot as your treatment group is profound.