Saturday, March 30, 2013

Study Shows Guns Do Not Offer Protection


A family compare handguns at a National Rifle Association meeting
An American family compare handguns at a National Rifle Association meeting. Photograph: Scott Olson/Getty Images

The Guardian

They compared 677 cases in which people were injured in a shooting incident with 684 people living in the same area that had not suffered a gun injury. The researchers matched these “controls” for age, race and gender. They found that those with firearms were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those who did not carry, utterly belying this oft repeated mantra.

The reasons for this, the authors suggest, are manifold. “A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Along the same lines, individuals who are in possession of a gun may increase their risk of gun assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally avoided. Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them.”


This result is not particularly unexpected. Prof David Hemenway of Harvard school of public health has published numerous academic investigations in this area and found that such claims are rooted far more in myth than fact. While defensive gun use may occasionally occur successfully, it is rare and very much the exception – it doesn’t change the fact that actually owning and using a firearm hugely increases the risk of being shot. This is a finding supported by numerous other studies in health policy, including several articles in the New England Journal of Medicine.  Arguments to the contrary are not rooted in reality; the Branas study also found that for individuals who had time to resist and counter in a gun assault, the odds of actually being shot actually increased to 5.45 fold relative to an individual not carrying.

The rest of the article makes the point a bit more in depth. But it's basically what many of us have been saying for years.

One thing it highlights is the despicable and self-centered behavior of the NRA and gun-rights activists who insist guns do more good than harm.  Some of them are honestly blinded by their bias, others I suppose are so morally bankrupt that they preach guns-are-the-answer even though they know better.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

4 comments:

  1. This comment has nothing to do with the above idiocy, but I was hoping to hear some anguished bleating about this admirable, forward-thinking program. Come on, Mikeb, whine for me. You know how much I love that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Or it could be that you refuse to recognize that your side only listens to studies that reach a predetermined conclusion. That kind of behavior isn't limited to one side only, but you'd do yourself a favor by seeing that the evidence on this question is mixed.

    What I know is this: My choices make me safer. I don't insist that anyone else make my choice. Your side insists that everyone make the same choice.

    ReplyDelete
  3. With some of the lies and manipulations of statistics that you and your side have been caught in, you'll have to forgive me if I take this study with such a large grain of salt that I continue making my decisions based on my circumstances, experience, and reason, and not based on some study done by an academic who couldn't find his ass with both hands.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You may find this hard to believe, but Fire Retardant Clothing actuality does more harm than good. It increases your chance of being burned. It's true. There's a new study that analyzed hundreds of burn victims and determined that five times as many people were wearing clothing that was supposed to protect them.

    ReplyDelete