« Zombie Workout | Main | What You Won't See On The Right Wing Blogs »

October 06, 2009

Comments

Dave Merriman

I have long proposed that one possible solution to the gun control/ownership issue is to let any (non-felon) citizen that can demonstrate the requisite skills (safety, judgement, weapon control, et al) own and carry. But I suppose that makes too much sense...

Steve

One of the problems with the study, is that people who felt that they were going to be shot, tended to carry a gun. Think drug dealers, gang members and the like.
It's an interesting study, but not necessarily the last word on the subject.

Eric Coobs


Gun control is hitting your target -

My take-it-everywhere pistol when I'm travelling is my trusy .41 Magnum snubby, with the ported barrel, and it shoots straight.

The only weapon I keep out at home, or at the cabin is a 12 gauge, stoked with buckshot.

Anybody wanting to add to the statistics can try assaulting somebody here and we'll see how big the splatter is - LOL


Craig Moore

Time will tell if this study is flawed or accurate. However, what is missing is the comparison to ALL crimes like rape, assaults, thefts, etc. Are more women raped because they have a personal firearm? Don't know myself. I am willing to take the chance that I may be killed if I am able to defend my family from harm in the process.

Big Swede

I getting geared up to blame the study on crime rates in the area studied, then I ran across this comment, saved me a lot typing.

>>Hey Monica...let's look at some real facts (not controlled studies). Philadelphia has 11.6% of the state population. In 2008, Philadelphia had: 5.3 times the state ratio on homicides per million people with firearms; 3.8 times the stabbing homicides; 4.1 times the homicides with blunt instruments; 5.5 times the homicides with personal weapons; 3.8 times the strangulation homicides; 5.7 times the homicides by fire; 2.2 times from all other methods. In total, there was 4.9 times as many homicides in Philadelphia per million people as compared to the rest of the entire state. In 2008, Philadelphia had 22.8 homicides per million; the entire rest of the state was only 3.2 homicides per million. As for handgun facts in 2008...Philadelphia had 18.3 handgun homicides per million; the entire rest of the state had 1.1 per million. The entire so called study is bogus. Branas has a personal opinion and is trying to prove it with a study that is slanted in the direction he wants. Maybe his control group should be the 36 counties in PA with 32.1% of the total population that had zero (0) homicides with handguns in 2008. But if he did that, his whole study would show the flaw. Monica...be a reporter, look at facts and stop supporting this type of BS; Scott is correct...he is the solution, not the problem.<<

I'm sure a study like this was released right before England lost its rights of self protection.

Steve

Maybe you are more likely to be shot if you live in an urban environment than any other factor.

Wulfgar

This study is not a definitive answer, but it is a piece of the puzzle.

Swede, without having read the actual study, your comment rings hollow. The implication is that the control group was within the same metro area. Also, other circumstances (occupation, criminal behavior) were removed. This appears to be a straight up analysis. If you have a gun at the time of a shooting, it appears 4.5 times more likely that you will be shot. Adding the intent of the assailant would only muddy the waters.

Where the study could fall down is if it were done in a more ruralized setting, where familiarity with actually firing weapons tends higher.

Big Swede

"Circumstantial occupation removal", sounds like a urban punch line.

Also removed was intelligence, education levels (includes familiarity) and whether or not the victims mimicked gun handling music videos.

Regaurdless, I think this Penn study did confirm the works of Herrnstein and Murry, fifteen years ago.

Moorcat

The sad truth is that most people believe that having a carry gun is enough to stop violence to your person or your family. They forgo the requisite things that go along with owning and carrying that gun - training, familiarizing themselves with the firearm, regular practice, routine maintenence to the firearm, etc. I was a responder to a firearm incident where a person (with a valid carry permit) attempted to use his carry gun to defend himself against a mugger armed with a knife. His firearm failed to discharge because he had forgotten to take off the safety. The mugger took the gun, pistol whipped the idiot, and made off with his wallet and money.

There are a LOT of these kind of events that occur in urban areas (at least the ones that still allow private citizens to go armed), so I am not all that surprised by this study. Like Wulfgar, I believe that the statistics would be quite different in a more rural setting - where the individual carrying the weapon is more likely to know what the hell they are doing with it.

I don't see this study as threatening to our gun rights now but I do see it as a wakeup call to those that want to actually carry a gun for protection. Learn how to use the damn thing in a real situation or you will end up just one more statistic.

Moorcat

Montana Cowgirl

I wonder about a state like Wyoming, where people are trying to make it ok for previous domestic violence perps to carry a gun. If you all think rural is safer than urban, consider the plight of rural Wyoming domestic violence victims.

firefly

It's not really a question of rural being safer than urban, it is more a question of can/will you pull the trigger if you need to.

People in rural areas, compared to urban areas, at least in MT, do seem have more familiarity and confidence with guns, thereby making them more likely to effectively use a gun in a defensive situation.

It's nuthin' but a paperweight till you take the trigger lock off...

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Read This!

Friends like Family

Blog powered by Typepad