Yet another stupid "study" - Own a gun, get killed - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Yet another stupid "study" - Own a gun, get killed

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Bellingham, WA, USA

    Question Anybody ever heard of the Scientific Method?!?

    Herein lies the whole problem with the erroneously labeled "study":

    Branas said that along with a team of about a dozen people, including colleagues, members of the Philadelphia Police Department and the city Medical Examiner's Office, he conducted a case control study, or an approximation of an experiment.
    From 2003 to 2006, the police notified Branas and his team about all shootings that occurred in the city, he said.
    "We would then get the data and pass it along to a survey-research firm to find an individual who had not been shot and ask them what they were doing and where they were at the time of the shooting," Branas said.

    First, there is no consideration of whether the individual possessing the gun did so legally or illegally (although I still believe in the second amendment as our collective permit). Second, case control studies are notoriously easy to influence, depending on desired outcome. None of the parameters were listed, and from the data given, there is no indication of how many assaults, rapes, and murders were possibly avoided due to firearm possession.

    All in all, a rubbish propaganda piece with anecdotal data, no controls, and extremely questionable methodology.

    I am always a proponent of looking at the raw data directly. I don't believe the NRA studies just because I usually agree with them, and I don't disbelieve the Brady Campaign studies just because I usually disagree with them: I look at the data gathered, along with the methodology of the data gathering process, and am able to make up my own mind.

    This has led me to a few broad generalizations (my own opinions, of course):

    1) The studies put out by the NRA, while generally pointing in an accurate direction, sometimes have questionable data filters that tend to give their data a pro-gun stance.

    2) The Brady Campaign studies and reports much more commonly use ridiculous methodology and filters in order to "bend" data towards their self professed anti-firearm (defense of self) stance.

    3) All politicians are liars, and will sell their constituents out at the first opportunity for self gain. No study needed; see self evident truth.
    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

  3. #12
    Makes you wonder how many were victims of a drive-by and happened to have a HiPoint tucked in their waistbands......
    Victory rewards not the army that fires the most rounds, but who is the more accurate shot. ---Unknown

  4. #13
    I think this article is a load of crap. At best the premice is a poor one in that it does not give much of a exspination as to who all was in that survey and as said by other posts includes gang memebers, proeple that own guns but have never fired them. It would be a much different out come if they only looked at CC holders. But then even police get shot and they are suppose to trained. Nobody lives forever.

  5. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by srshadwi View Post
    I would say that it is more important to stay out of bad neighborhoods, graduate from highschool/college, don't be in a high risk occupation, don't break the law and don't drink or do drugs while armed.

    You have definitely fallen for BHO's hidden logic agenda. We must get you to rehab immediately before you start removing you lapel flag and resigning from the NRA. Isn't this exactly what BHO's speech to school children was all about?

    Remember that toilet paper has been shown to cause colon cancer. More that 98% of all Americans with colon cancer has used toilet paper at least once in their lives. This rate of cancer is higher than in countries where toilet paper is not used so what other facts do you need?

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Moore County, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by 6shootercarry View Post
    mbass, Thanks for providing the springboard for my sad comedic leap…

    My pleasure?

    Reap the Vision...

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Moore County, NC


    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    More that 98% of all Americans with colon cancer has used toilet paper at least once in their lives. This rate of cancer is higher than in countries where toilet paper is not used so what other facts do you need?
    You'd think that percentage would be higher(???).

    Reap the Vision...

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    I agree. You guys remember what happened to me back in January while I was carrying, don't you? Not only was I shot, my pistol was taken from me afterward.

    Not trying to lend any credence to what is an obviously biased study, but it is definitely possible.

    One more thing. I don't think anyone on this site has ever said that carrying, whether openly or concealed, is a foolproof solution against getting shot. All we're doing by exercising RKBA is leveling the playing field on which criminals and law abiding citizens play. Sure, you can get shot whether or not you're carrying, but personally, even with what happened to me, I believe that my chances of prevailing over an armed criminal are better when I'm armed than if I'm not.

    Quote Originally Posted by doming83 View Post
    i think thier study is biased but ,its not wrong. no body expects to get robbed, raped,or murdered so the criminal always has the advantage. there for i say even if u have a gun to defend your self he already has pointed at u. so if u pull yours he already has the drop on u. Yet i well always carry mine because having a chance to defend myself is better than not having one.

    These people are probally antigun nut's anyway looking for any excuse, or reason to take away our rights.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  9. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by mbass View Post
    You'd think that percentage would be higher(???).
    The actual figure probably is higher than 98% but I didn't want anyone to think that I was exaggerating. Corncobs are still in vogue in some placed but unfortunately the Sears catalog is no longer being published. Besides the latest tree hugger movement is to use recycled toilet paper

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Quote Originally Posted by mbass View Post
    You'd think that percentage would be higher(???).

    Maybe... Maybe not, but I would not want to be shaking hands with them...
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

  11. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Kalifornia & Idaho

    Other studies

    Quote Originally Posted by 1611mac View Post
    Self-Defense -- In a landmark survey, criminologist Gary Kleck found that handguns are used in about 2/3 of 2.5 million annual defensive firearm uses.8 Analyzing Nat'l Crime Victimization Surveys, Kleck found that people who use firearms to defend themselves are less likely to be attacked or injured than people who use other or noprotective methods. Protection method and percents of individuals injured included: Used gun -- 17.4%, Used knife-- 40.3%, Used other weapon -- 22.0%, Used physical force -- 50.8%, Tried toget help, frighten offender -- 48.9%, Threatened, reasoned with offender -- 30.7%, Nonviolent resistance, (including evasion) -- 34.9%, Other measures -- 26.5%, Any self-protection -- 38.2%, No self-protection -- 24.7%. Kleck also found that "at most, 1% of defensive gun uses resulted in the offender taking a gun away from the victim," including instances in which burglars stealing guns from homes are confronted by homeowners armed with other guns.9

    The Value of Civilian Handgun Possession as a Deterrent to Crime or a Defense Against Crime
    The Value of Civilian Handgun Possession
    as a Deterrent to Crime or a Defense
    Against Crime
    Don B. Kates Jr.[*]

    ...Mr. Edwards energetically pursues that theme, offering three tables and two graphs (all reflecting the same data base) to prove that "as shown by official studies firearms ownership and the commission of crime ... gun ownership by the average citizen does not promote crime but reduces crime."[58]

    ...Based on surveys sponsored by anti-gun groups, handguns are used to defend against approximately 645,000 crimes per year.[92] The accuracy of the magnitude of this figure may be assessed (p.142)by noting that it slightly exceeds the estimated 581,500 crimes committed or attempted by handgun armed felons each year.[93]

    ...Thirty-four percent of the convicts responding "said they had been 'scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim,' and about two-thirds (69%) had at least one acquaintance who had this experience."[103]

    ...[I]n 1966 there were a series of brutal rapes in Orlando, Florida which panicked the women of the city into buying firearms for defense. Fearing a rash of accidental shootings, the local newspaper co-sponsored a firearms training class conducted by the police department; in the next few months some 6,000 [sic -- the actual number was about 3,000] women were trained in firearms safety and through the extensively publicized program. The results were remarkable.... [In 1967] Orlando was the only city in the U.S. of more than 100,000 population to show a decrease in crime.[133]

    There is much more but the facts and legitimate studies have found considerably different results than the one that started this thread.

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts