Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Using a 'risk method' similar to studies of diseases, University of Pennsylvania researcher (Dr. Charles Branas, PhD) found that guns did not, on average protect those who possessed them from being shot, and raised the risk by four times.
Several statisticians call the conclusion a 'stretch' and questioned if all differences between the shooting victims and those of the comparison group were accounted for.
What most experts do agree on is the need for solid scientific information about the risks or benefits of guns.
The abstract can be found here as only subscribers to the American Journal of Public Health have access to the full study.
News articles on the same from the Pantagraph Newspaper is here and a opinion piece from a PA newspaper is here (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20091007_Monica_Yant_Kinney__A_downside_to_carryin g_a_gun_.html - broken link).
Using a 'risk method' similar to studies of diseases, University of Pennsylvania researcher (Dr. Charles Branas, PhD) found that guns did not, on average protect those who possessed them from being shot, and raised the risk by four times.
Several statisticians call the conclusion a 'stretch' and questioned if all differences between the shooting victims and those of the comparison group were accounted for.
What most experts do agree on is the need for solid scientific information about the risks or benefits of guns.
The abstract can be found here as only subscribers to the American Journal of Public Health have access to the full study.
News articles on the same from the Pantagraph Newspaper is here and a opinion piece from a PA newspaper is here (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20091007_Monica_Yant_Kinney__A_downside_to_carryin g_a_gun_.html - broken link).
We had this thread before, the study is flawed because it does not and can not include people who were armed and were not shot. It was a slanted piece of propaganda to begin with
We had this thread before, the study is flawed because it does not and can not include people who were armed and were not shot. It was a slanted piece of propaganda to begin with
(I did not see a previous post in 'other controversies'.)
It did look at people who owned guns but were not armed at the time.
The data gathering did not look biased since it match race to race, sex to sex, and age to age, people home to people home and people outsdie to people outside.
Statistical corrections were put in for other factors that might influence a person's chance of being a victim - neighborhood type, a person's use of alcohol, and involvement in the drug trade.
Having guns could induce people to behave differently or people are having their firearms turned on them.
Quote:
"The U.S. has a far higher per capita rate of gun violence than any other developed country, he said. If guns really made us safer we should be the safest country on Earth".
Dr. Branas acknowledged the possible pitfalls of his study. To do a perfect experiment, he said, researchers would need to get a big group of people and give them guns and compare them to another big group who were not allowed to have guns.
(I did not see a previous post in 'other controversies'.)
It did look at people who owned guns but were not armed at the time.
The data gathering did not look biased since it match race to race, sex to sex, and age to age, people home to people home and people outsdie to people outside.
Statistical corrections were put in for other factors that might influence a person's chance of being a victim - neighborhood type, a person's use of alcohol, and involvement in the drug trade.
Having guns could induce people to behave differently or people are having their firearms turned on them.
Dr. Branas acknowledged the possible pitfalls of his study. To do a perfect experiment, he said, researchers would need to get a big group of people and give them guns and compare them to another big group who were not allowed to have guns.
guns do not make us safer. dead & wounded criminals make us much safer.
fyi crime on NYC subway fell 18% the day after getz shot the 4 gangbangers attempting an armed robbery.
(I did not see a previous post in 'other controversies'.)
It did look at people who owned guns but were not armed at the time.
The data gathering did not look biased since it match race to race, sex to sex, and age to age, people home to people home and people outsdie to people outside.
Statistical corrections were put in for other factors that might influence a person's chance of being a victim - neighborhood type, a person's use of alcohol, and involvement in the drug trade.
Having guns could induce people to behave differently or people are having their firearms turned on them.
Dr. Branas acknowledged the possible pitfalls of his study. To do a perfect experiment, he said, researchers would need to get a big group of people and give them guns and compare them to another big group who were not allowed to have guns.
It started with a conclusion and worked backwards, it's worthless.
It started with a conclusion and worked backwards, it's worthless.
Wonders never cease. I never thought I would find myself agreeing with you, Boompa, but I do in this case. Good points and facts!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
