What Utter Stupidity....

[Lord Jim]

I have also taken vitamin supplements, but I don't believe that vitamin C prevents colds because the evidence says it does not.

Do you take vitamin C believing that it increases the likelihood that you will catch a cold?

Because that is what would be the proper analogy to what you have said about owning a gun...

Like Warner Wolf says, Let's go to the tape:

Only a deluded person thinks that owning a dangerous thing like a gun makes you safer. It does not. The evidence proves it.

the real scientific evidence is that guns in the home make you less safe.

Burglars like to steal Cash, Guns, Drugs, and Jewelry (in roughly that order) and if they know you have them lying around they are more likely to break in.

The data is very clear. Guns increase your risk. They do not protect you.

Laying aside the fact that the "data" you brought to the table to back these statements up was thoroughly discredited, (unlike you, I took the time to read all the way through the study you linked to to back up your claims, and actually understood it....which is why I was able to demonstrate the critical flaws in the methodology) you clearly believe those assertions to be true....

And yet, despite the fact that you believe that "Guns increase your risk. They do not protect you", "guns in the home make you less safe", "Only a deluded person thinks that owning a dangerous thing like a gun makes you safer", and "if they know you have them lying around they are more likely to break in"....

You say this:

I have owned guns in the past and will likely do so again in the future.

(Digression question: does that mean you don't own one currently?...)

So (assuming you don't own one currently...and ever since you first said you owned one, you've never said you got rid of it) you fully intend to own a gun again, even though you believe it will make you less safe, increases your risk, and makes you more likely to be the target of a home invasion.....

And you call other people "irrational"...

[rubato]

I believe the science.

The American Journal of Epidemiology:

See link for more.
_________________________
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study

Linda L. Dahlberg1,
Robin M. Ikeda2 and
Marcie-jo Kresnow3

+ Author Affiliations

1 Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
2 Epidemiology Program Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
3 Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.


Next Section
Abstract

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.


Received for publication February 9, 2004; accepted for publication June 7, 2004.
Previous SectionNext Section

Over 50,000 homicides and suicides occur each year in the United States (1), making them among the leading causes of death, particularly for young people. In 2001, homicide was the second leading cause of death and suicide the third for persons 15–24 years of age (2). Approximately 60 percent of all homicides and suicides in the United States are committed with a firearm (2).

... "

_____________________________________

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Carrying a gun increases chance of being shot and killed by 4.2 times.


_________________________________

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... illed.html
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed

15:26 06 October 2009 by Ewen Callaway
For similar stories, visit the US national issues Topic Guide

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.

Journal reference: American Journal of Public Health, DOI:
________________________


yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

You carry on owning one then!

[Lord Jim]

I believe the science.

The American Journal of Epidemiology:


See link for more.
_________________________
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

There goes that Turret Syndrome thing again....

Rube, see link for more:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8168&p=104482&hilit ... dy#p104482

[Econoline]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... illed.html
≠
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

(Completely different study. Just sayin')

[Joe Guy]

Here are some fun stories for gun toting NRA supporters.

[Beer Sponge]

It is tourette syndrome Jim, get the spelling correct, at least.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourette_syndrome

[Lord Jim]

(Completely different study. Just sayin')

Yes, and a completely different subject....

Carrying a gun in public, versus having one in the home...

But moving past that, (I'm tired of saying "laying that aside" and getting Beavis and Butthead type snickers from Meade... ) let's look at this:

First of all, that article does not contain the kind of detailed discussion of methodology that the other one did that made that "study" so easy to debunk. It's just an article about a "study", (I couldn't find a link to the original study that the POV article was based on, but if you can find it I'll be more than happy to look at it.)

Second, of course it's based on just one city, but again moving past that, let's examine what we do have:

The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.

Not enough information here to reach any meaningful conclusions. Just what were those "confounding differences" the researchers supposedly "accounted" for?

Did they account for whether or not the person killed was in a gang? Did they account for prior criminal activity? Did they account for whether or not the person was carrying a gun legally or not?

Which isn't an easy thing to do in Philadelphia:

While Pennsylvania has a specific law that requires a License To Carry Firearms for the concealed carry of a firearm, and the carry of firearms in vehicles, the law is silent on the legality of openly carrying a firearm in other situations, making it de-facto legal.

There is however a law that requires a License To Carry Firearms to carry either way in "cities of the first class", which as defined by law is only the city of Philadelphia.


18 Pa.C.S. § 6108: Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia

No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class unless:
(1) such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or
(2) such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).

To summarize, open carry is legal in Pennsylvania without a License To Carry Firearms except in "cities of the first class" (Philadelphia) and vehicles where a License To Carry Firearms is required to do so.

http://www.pafoa.org/law/carrying-firearms/open-carry

Does "4.2 times more likely" apply to a gang banging, illegal gun-toting drug dealer, or to a law abiding citizen who has gone through all of the rigamarole of obtaining a license to carry on the streets of Philadelphia?

(These are things one would obviously want to know in evaluating the validity and meaning of this study. The article provides no information on this score.)

Or is it (as I suspect) just a gross figure thrown together making no distinctions of this sort for the purpose of giving a false impression?

It seems that even the author of this article is uncomfortable about the validity of this "study's" conclusions (though he's clearly sympathetic to them) and the paucity of information about methodology and data collection available:

While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot,

Hell, according to the article, even Charles Branas, the guy who conducted the study, admits:

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

Props to him for being honest enough to admit that...

If even the guy who ran the study admits that you can't reach any definitive conclusions from it, why should anyone else?

To summarize:

The numbers quoted in the study are essentially meaningless because there is not enough information here about how they were compiled to reach any objective conclusions regarding the soundness of the methodology. This particular study is also suspect because the guy who ran it seems to have strong doubts about what conclusions can be drawn from it, and surely he is familiar with how it was compiled....

[Lord Jim]

It is tourette syndrome Jim, get the spelling correct, at least.

"I don’t give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way."

[Rick]

That study was only in a city of Brotherly Love just think if they were in a city that had Angels.

Oh wait although not impossible it is very difficult, is it still 4.?...

[Lord Jim]

An interesting question would be, why on earth, would a person quote a study, (copy and paste it in fact) to back up his point about guns, when the guy who ran the study himself says ""We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous,".

If I was looking for some data on the internet to back up some point I was making, and came across a poison pill like that, I'd look for another source....I'd think, "Gee if I try to use this, I'll just look foolish; somebody is sure to call me on it."

My guess is that in rube's case, since that sentence was in the next to last paragraph, he never even saw it; he never got that far...

Rube has enormous problems concentrating on any written material that goes past two paragraphs, (especially when it isn't put in bold for him) Anything that runs more than a few sentences, and rube gets completely lost; his attention span simply can't handle it....he starts drooling and playing with his toes....

He probably fought his way through the misleading headline: "Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed" and thought:

"Mmm... this be good article; man agree with me"....

And then proceeded to copy and paste it....

[rubato]

Poor dear, still with the reading problems?

""We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous,". Because their study did not look at that, more general, question. Only whether carrying a gun gives you a greater or lesser chance of dying within the study area.

Twy rewally hard next time?

Moron.


yrs,
rubato

[dales]

Getting started on New Years a little early are we?

[Crackpot]

He's just keeping up with the spirit (title) of the thread.

[Gob]

""We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous,". Because their study did not look at that, more general, question. Only whether carrying a gun gives you a greater or lesser chance of dying within the study area.

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.

Nothing about; "Only whether carrying a gun gives you a greater or lesser chance of dying within the study area," there.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Nothing about; "Only whether carrying a gun gives you a greater or lesser chance of dying within the study area," there.

Are you sure Gob?

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

[Rick]

It makes it sound like if you don't carry a gun you'll only get shot and wounded.

I have tried looking at the data on this, one thing I have found to be true the data is all over the place.

There is one thing that does seem to be thematic and that is in studies about gun death guns are involved.

I have also noticed that same trend when cars are involved...

[Lord Jim]

It is absolutely impossible for any rational person, applying even a minimal standard of objectivity, (two criteria which obviously gives rube a pass) based on the information (and lack thereof) presented in this article to be able to conclude that the blanket claim made in the article's headline is in anyway supported by this study.

[oldr_n_wsr]

It's Philadelphia. Any big city has gangs, thugs, drug dealer and other less desireables who, more often than not, are packin' heat. And those people are, more often than not, pack heat because they are targetted by other gang members, other drug dealers and other thugs. So having the biggest question that needs and answer is "are those guns legal and is the person carrying it legally able to posess that gun". If that question is not answered (and as far as I have read in the article it was not) then all conclusions are questionable. They say they adjusted for socioeconomic status, but as LordJim noted, "what does that mean?"

In the town of Beach Lake Pa. (where my lake house is located) many people carry guns. Same with the town of Forest City Pa. where my sister lives. I haven't heard of people getting shot carrying a gun or not carrying a gun. Any shooting seems to be from a hunting accident.

But on a good note, NY city has a record low of murders this year.