... University of Pennsylvania researchers released the results of a study seeking evidence that having a gun protects the holder from peril.
To the contrary, the epidemiologists found in the first-of-its-kind investigation: People with a gun on them were actually 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those who were unarmed.
One fascinating thing is the academics all seem to agree. We've discussed Prof. Wintemute, who put a spotlight on gun shows, Dr. Hemenway, who was the inspiration for my famous "guns are bad news for women," and now we have Charles C. Branas, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Epidemiology at Univ. of Penn., saying that carrying a gun can be bad for your health.
The study investigated shootings in Philadelphia, which number 5 per day, and concluded that carrying a gun makes you 4.5 times more likely to suffer a gunshot yourself.
Now, even I, who struggle with bias and the deep desire to win these arguments, can see that there's a big difference between young gang members who carry guns and your average responsible gun owner. Even allowing for my 10% theory, I can see that in the latter group the numbers would be very different than in the former. Nevertheless, 4.5 times more likely is a compelling statistic, wouldn't you say?
Ms. Yant Kinney described the difference between New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Carry laws differ greatly between Pennsylvania and New Jersey, mirroring the states' wildly opposing views on gun sales and ownership.
In New Jersey, where I live, 25,753 handguns were purchased last year, but only 580 people received carry permits.
"And the vast majority of those," notes State Police Det. Glenn Ross, "are for employment reasons," such as private detectives, armored car drivers, and security guards.
In Pennsylvania, 208,436 handguns were sold in 2008. And the bulk of those buyers - 150,840 - received licenses to carry.
Where do you think all those guns used in Philadelphia, the ones used in the 5 shootings a day, are coming from? Maybe the gun flow from that incredible number of 208,000 in a single year accounts for them. Maybe, so many guns are flowing from the good guys to the bad guys in PA that there are some left over for Camden and Newark, ah but this is just idle speculation.
What's your opinion?
Let me get this straight... This "study" was conducted in Philadelphia? The city with the 86% criminal recidivism rate?
ReplyDeleteThen the results are no surprise. In Philadelphia, it's not carrying a gun that makes you 4.5 times more likely to be shot. It's being a criminal that makes you 4.5 times more likely to be shot.
I'd like to know who the 5 people who are shot everyday are. I'm willing to bet 4 of them have criminal records and were probably engaged in risky/criminal activity near the time they were shot.
Exactly, Aztec--the "study's" figures included people who carry guns for gangbanging and drug dealing purposes.
ReplyDeleteIn Pennsylvania, 208,436 handguns were sold in 2008. And the bulk of those buyers - 150,840 - received licenses to carry. The author has a disconnect with gun buys vs. licenses to carry when they make statements like this (unless there is something else that I am missing). What there is are two separate (and not necessarily related facts).
ReplyDelete1) 208,436 handguns were sold in PA.
2) PA issued 150,840 CCW permits in 2008.
Just because you were issued a permit, does not mean that you bought a handgun (you probably already had one). So without some link between 1 and 2 above, it is academically dishonest to say that "the bulk of those buyers [1] received licenses to carry [2]."
The study has a lot of problems, as I outlined, and Eugene Volokh outlined. Enough problems that it essentially can't really shed light on anything.
ReplyDeleteBut either way, let me just ask you this, most of gun violence in this country is centered around the drug trade. How do you propose keeping guns out the hands of people who are trafficking in an illegal commodity to begin with? Is it just going to be magic that we can keep guns out of their hands but not drugs?
In Pennsylvania, 208,436 handguns were sold in 2008. And the bulk of those buyers - 150,840 - received licenses to carry.
ReplyDeleteThe "logic" involved in this statement alone pretty much discredits the entire study. As Reputo said, there is NO logical connection between # of handguns sold and # of CCW permits.
This is not a minor mistake. It's a glaring error and it's hard to understand how the researcher could have such an incredible disconnect without being either deliberately dishonest or ignorant.
So a study that the authors admit has flawed methodology comes up with first-of-its-kind results...Imagine that.
ReplyDeleteHow many license holders were involved in the shootings of this study?
How would the study treat a mugger armed wth a gun who got shot by a good guy--wouldn't that count as the mugger "had a gun, got shot anyway"? Would the good guy shooting the mugger even be counted under their methods if he ddd not get shot?
Sebastian asked, "How do you propose keeping guns out the hands of people who are trafficking in an illegal commodity to begin with? Is it just going to be magic that we can keep guns out of their hands but not drugs?"
ReplyDeleteWell, we could keep drugs out of their hands if we really wanted to, or at least greatly minimize the availability. We could do the same with guns - if we really wanted to.
We could even continue letting them have the drugs and minimize the gun availability. We wouldn't eradicate it, no one is saying that, but a significant decrease in gun availability would be good for everybody.
Well, we could keep drugs out of their hands if we really wanted to
ReplyDeleteHow? Several decades of this shit hasn't seemingly produces any drop in the drug trade. We can't even eradicate drugs in Afghanistan, a country where the military can go blow up pretty much whoever and whatever it wants to.
I don't expect Mike to answer that question, Sebastian. He won't even say why his proposed gun control laws will work (or even commit to a a system he personally thinks will work)
ReplyDeleteI doubt his idea that somehow our massive anti-drug forces aren't "really trying" will be justified as well.
What mikeB doesn't get is that you can't fight a war from the supply side, be it guns or drugs.
ReplyDeleteHistory bears this out, but he'll believe what he wants anway.