The American Journal of Public Health has added another argument to the discussion on whether or not carrying firearms adds self-defensive protection against being shot in assault, or not.
The site is payware and so only the summary ("Abstract") of the study could been accessed as long as you do not pay for the fully text. I read two German summaries of the study. These just said in principle what the link is saying, too.
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abst...urcetype=HWCIT
Quote:
Abstract
Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.
Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.
Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P<.05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P<.05).
Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.
|
For social psychology, this is no big surprise, corresponding statements and findings are not new in it's fields, i remember from university times. Carrying weapons in self-defense must not necessarily have a deterring effect - it also can trigger easier use of violent force by the attacker in an attempt to overcome the surprising or to be expected resistance of the intended victim.
Everything has to sides - something that some people often ignore.
Does this mean you should rule out self-defence in general? No. but you better rule out that owning a gun frees you from any risks and gives you the freedom to no longer correctly assess situations and being prepared for unwelcomed surprises - which is a 24/7 job. that is a burden that the ordinary normal guy cannot properly care for, even more so if not being sued to training like you get it in certain proessions. In many cases, you are better off to let go your material possessions instead of defending them with a weapon.
In other words: owning a gun has its own risks, and owning a gun is no replacement for brains, and we do not even talk about the need for proper gun training and training the psychological readiness to use ponetially lethal force against somebody else (a problem known to any self defence trainer). In many situations and places you are simply better off not to be armed. That may hurt your ego, but a hurt ego does not kill you.