And the 2009 Junk Science for gun research goes to...

WillBrink · #1 09-30-09, 17:16

Your hard earned tax money at work. Junk science at a level that makes some of the prior politically motivated anti gun "research" look Nobel Worthy:

September 30, 2009

Penn Study Asks, Protection or Peril? Gun Possession of Questionable Value in an Assault

Those possessing gun in assault situation 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those not possessing one

PHILADELPHIA – In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

The study was released online this month in the American Journal of Public Health, in advance of print publication in November 2009.

“This study helps resolve the long-standing debate about whether guns are protective or perilous,” notes study author Charles C. Branas, PhD, Associate Professor of Epidemiology. “Will possessing a firearm always safeguard against harm or will it promote a false sense of security?”

What Penn researchers found was alarming – almost five Philadelphians were shot every day over the course of the study and about 1 of these 5 people died. The research team concluded that, although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the chances of success are low. People should rethink their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures, write the authors. Suggestions to the contrary, especially for urban residents who may see gun possession as a defense against a dangerous environment should be discussed and thoughtfully reconsidered.

A 2005 National Academy of Science report concluded that we continue to know very little about the impact of gun possession on homicide or the utility of guns for self-defense. Past studies had explored the relationship between homicides and having a gun in the home, purchasing a gun, or owning a gun. These studies, unlike the Penn study, did not address the risk or protection that having a gun might create for a person at the time of a shooting.

Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person’s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.

These shooting cases were matched to Philadelphia residents who acted as the study’s controls. To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting. This is the same approach that epidemiologists have historically used to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes.

“The US has at least one gun for every adult,” notes Branas. “Learning how to live healthy lives alongside guns will require more studies such as this one. This study should be the beginning of a better investment in gun injury research through various government and private agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control, which in the past have not been legally permitted to fund research ‘designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.’”

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors are also indebted to numerous dedicated individuals at the Philadelphia Police, Public Health, Fire, and Revenue Departments as well as DataStat Inc, who collaborated on the study.

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_...ession-safety/

LockenLoad · #2 09-30-09, 17:30

lets see why did the Vikings attack all of those monastery's, oh because they had no weapons to defend thy selves, history teaches us more than these so called PHD scientist's and there bogus studies

losbronces · #3 09-30-09, 18:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillBrink

“Learning how to live healthy lives alongside guns will require more studies such as this one. This study should be the beginning of a better investment in gun injury research through various government and private agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control, which in the past have not been legally permitted to fund research ‘designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.’”
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_...ession-safety/

And like any good consultant, he includes a sales pitch at the end encouraging the spending of more money on research. He is even suggesting that funding can be done through the CDC.

bkb0000 · #4 09-30-09, 18:14

wow.. that really is bogus on a number of levels. but even if their information gathering technique wasn't such a sham, the simple fact that a bunch of untrained gang-bangers in philly get shot more often when they pull heat has absolutely no correlation to trained law-abiding citizens carrying functional weapons in good quality holsters accross the rest of the united states.

they could not have picked a worse cross section to study.

RancidSumo · #5 09-30-09, 18:16

How many are gang members being shot by other gangs? Any that fall into that category should not be counted.

Also, if I have a gun in my car and I go into the store, how does my gun in the car play any role in my getting shot? Sounds like faulty causation to me.

perna · #6 09-30-09, 18:47

Quote:

Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person’s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.

Seems to me that 94% of people that were shot in an assault might not have been shot or assaulted if they had a gun.

Heavy Metal · #7 09-30-09, 19:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by RancidSumo

How many are gang members being shot by other gangs?

Likely 90+%

TMMT · #8 09-30-09, 19:22

There was a study put out by the FBI a few years back, towards the sunset of AWB I that showed the super majority of gun crimes were committed by criminals against each other.

The study was a bit controversial because it broke it down further to show that the majority of those crimes were black on black and mostly gang/drug related.

Anyone remember it?

I can't find it anymore.

SW-Shooter · #9 09-30-09, 19:52

A Government funded society says owning guns will kill you. Hmmmmmm shocking news.

Actually if you trust Doctors or members of their ilk to actually compile information on shootings in Philadelphia no less, what do you expect they'll say.

They see a majority of gangbangers and ghetto scum in the ER, shocking information I say.

FromMyColdDeadHand · #10 09-30-09, 23:36

I believe doctors research on guns usage, when they allow me play write Obamacare.

jcase64 · #11 09-30-09, 23:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMMT

I can't find it anymore.

Gun Facts

Gramps · #12 10-01-09, 00:45

So in conclusion, If nobody has a gun, then nobody will get shot by a gun toting criminal?

Did he get his PHD by Iranian mail order?

Know what this is below here?

O
-------
Dr.
B.S.
Phd

Why it's, "3 Degrees Below Zero"!

FromMyColdDeadHand · #13 10-01-09, 02:33

Epidemiology, interesting.

Wikipedia:

Quote:

Epidemiology is the study of factors affecting the health and illness of populations, and serves as the foundation and logic of interventions made in the interest of public health and preventive medicine. It is considered a cornerstone methodology of public health research, and is highly regarded in evidence-based medicine for identifying risk factors for disease and determining optimal treatment approaches to clinical practice. In the study of communicable and non-communicable diseases, the work of epidemiologists ranges from outbreak investigation to study design, data collection and analysis including the development of statistical models to test hypotheses and the documentation of results for submission to peer-reviewed journals. Epidemiologists also study the interaction of diseases in a population, a condition known as a syndemic. Epidemiologists rely on a number of other scientific disciplines, such as biology (to better understand disease processes), Geographic Information Science (to store data and map disease patterns) and social science disciplines (to better understand proximate and distal risk factors).

And totally not the right analysis of firearm ownership, but lets play their game for a minute.

They took something like 'guns' and looked at its effects your chances of dying. Talk about not picking your ground to fight on. Gang banger kill gang bangers, brilliant. Notice how one of the carry methods is "waistband". Was gun ownership the most highly coorelated variable with being gunned down? They seem to only be looking at negative effects and for some reason can't find the positive effects of gun ownership in their population studies, which undoubtably stems from the fact they are looking at urban, east coast local. It is always sample/population errors that trip these guys up. Who collected their data, ACORN?

But the overarching failure of their analysis of gun ownership is that the main benefit, the reason it is constitutionally protected, is not for personal defense, but rather to defend against run away government. Tyranny is the disease that guns are the cure for, not crime. Is it not plainly clear that gun regulation, registration and confiscation are the surest symptoms of the loss of freedom overall? Has the loosening of gun laws ever lead to dictators? Sure we use them to defend ourselves, but liberty is what the doctor ordered.

How about turning the Epidemiology microscope onto poverty and the welfare state. Talk about cause and effect.

Let's see if we can get the NRA-ILA some of that study money. Dr. Lott, calling Dr. Lott.

PMcMullen · #14 10-01-09, 09:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by losbronces

And like any good consultant, he includes a sales pitch at the end encouraging the spending of more money on research. He is even suggesting that funding can be done through the CDC.

That would be the same CDC that spent two years and untold tax dollars to conclude they could find no evidence gun control laws diminished gun violence... but that they should keep looking

RogerinTPA · #15 10-01-09, 09:34

What a steaming pile of dog shit. My 15 year old autistic nephew could have come up with a better study. The United States would virtually eliminate violent crime overnight if the powers at be, instituted a national open carry law.

WillBrink · #16 10-01-09, 10:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand

Let's see if we can get the NRA-ILA some of that study money. Dr. Lott, calling Dr. Lott.

I sent the report over to him after I posted this.

LegalAlien · #17 10-01-09, 15:55

Using Philly as a basis for a 'scientific study' on gun ownership and gun violence is a sound basis <sarcasm>!!!!

Might as well have done it in DC, Chi-town or the Bronx for that matter.

And then they have the gall to publish it nationally and claim that it their findings are 'good to go' throughout the USA????

Very scientific . . . very scientific . . . . for epidemiologists dabbling in firearm injuries/gun violence . . . .

I suggest they stick to their speciality

Rider79 · #18 10-01-09, 23:09

Quote:

These shooting cases were matched to Philadelphia residents who acted as the study’s controls. To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting.

I don't understand this part. What does the fact that they weren't there, therefore they didn't get shot have anything to do with it?

Erik 1 · #19 10-01-09, 23:46

Setting aside the fact that I don't understand the methodology they used, the only thing the study seems to suggest is that people need training and the mere possession of a gun is not enough to deter/prevent being robbed at gunpoint. That's what I get out of the article, in any event.

Ipsilateral_7 · #20 10-02-09, 03:39

even without reading the whole study, you'll see that there are going to be several inherent biases to the way the study is designed, simply on how they collected their data. "we'll compare people who got shot to those who didn't and see if getting shot is a risk for getting shot!"

It doesn't sound like they appropriately account for CCL laws either and I'd bet they're "control" group does not have a 6% CCL presence in it either.