![]() |
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Soaring
|
![]()
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:
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.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Fleet Admiral
![]() |
![]()
" 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...." Without knowing what adjustments and what the confounding variables, it is difficult to determine the accuracy of the results. Quote:
__________________
abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Ace of the Deep
![]() Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,012
Downloads: 20
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
I strongly believe that citizens have the right to own firearms to protect themselves or for sport. As long as they are properly trained, responsible adults, no criminal history or psychological problems, then they should own guns if they so desire. On the same note, I see no good reason for average Joe to own a fully automatic AK-47 or Uzi either. Hunting and defense are one thing, military grade weapons are something else.
I also believe the concealed permit should not be tied to the serial number of the weapon, or that you should have to register every weapon you own. I shudder at the thought of the government having a list of who owns what. I searched around a bit but couldn't find the one story I was looking for. An armed robber started killing people in a restaurant and a couple customers pulled out their concealed weapons and killed the robber. They saved many lives and prevented a potential massacre. (Bennigans or Ruby's in Houston 10 years ago?) Numerous cases of shop owners defending themselves, home invasions stopped, the list goes on. I doubt any of them were included in this study. I'm sure there's been more cases where having a concealed weapon prevented tragedy and went unreported. I think the reason the stats show some people are more prone to being injured when they have a weapon is because they get the direct attention of the bad guy. If you're a robber or assailant, who are you going to attack first; the guy lying on the floor crying or the one pointing his gun at you? People who have had weapons taken from them and used against them shouldn't have had a gun in the first place. They are the ones who point a gun at someone and flinch, take a breath, blink, pause..... They didn't have the proper training or the balls to use it. The survivors are the ones who know when you've gotten to the point when you have to draw down to your to defend your life; pulling it out, aiming it, then firing it are one continuous motion. Don't ever pull it out unless you've already decided to pull the trigger. That's how you save your life. Last edited by MothBalls; 10-05-09 at 12:21 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Soaring
|
![]()
"Some people more prone to getting injured" you said, Mothball. This study says the probabilty of armed people getting shot is found to be more than four times as big than for unarmed people. Note that the comparing case groups are almost the same size, between 650 and 700, but the "armed" group has had almost five times as many people shot down.
They reasons you gave for that, greater attraction by the attacker, may be right, and if they meet resisrtance in a situation where they did not expect it, it may also lead to short circuits in their behavior and - bamm, there you go. But these reasons do not change anything. They have been dealt with in social psychology for quite some time (when is aggressive behavior by a defender successful, and when is it provoking even more aggressiveness by the attacker). But the basic problem remains. If that study is robust, it says that you run greater risks of getting shot when you own a weapon, and indeed, the author recommend at the end that people should reconsider the possession of firearms as a self-defensive means. according to this statistical finding, it is absolutely counterproductive.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
The Old Man
![]() Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Phx. Az
Posts: 1,458
Downloads: 24
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
The probability of the bad guy getting shot by an armed citizen goes up 100% verses an unarmed victim.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |||
Silent Hunter
![]() Join Date: May 2008
Location: Storming the beaches!
Posts: 4,254
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
Sky does bring up a good point in suggesting (as per the study) that armed victims are more likely to be shot in some situations; if an assailant with a firearm has the drop on you and you stupidly try to out-draw him....well, the results will be fairly predictable. As Sky points out, discretion is sometimes the better part of valor, whether you are armed or not. Techniques exsist that allow one to suddenly and advantageously reverse such situations, but they are risky and difficult for anyone without a very vested effort in self-defense education to execute. That said, the suggestion that simply posessing a weapon makes you more prone to becoming a casualty is questionable. In many cases, possessing a firearm will make you much less prone to becoming a casualty; for instance, if someone is intent upon killing or wounding you with an inferior weapon, a firearm would be a decided advantage under most circumstances. Similarly, if one were to find oneself in the area of a mass shooting, use of a firearm is a much better recourse than simply panicking and running/hiding, counting upon others to take bullets for you. That is, assuming you care anything for the lives of others. In fact, in the situation described above, one would stand an excellent chance of successfully wounding or killing the attacker because they would have the element of surprise. Quote:
Nonetheless, if private weapon ownership and responsible usage were to be encouraged, the deterrant effect would manifest itself much more effectively, imo. I realize the critics often point to the comparitively high ratio of guns to citizens in the US as evidence against that point, but those statistics are quite misleading. Most gun owners own more than one firearm. I myself own six, but I'm not indicative of the US population as a whole. Nonetheless, all my registered weapons count towards the ratios calculated by the ATF. Once you factor in the number of obsolete or collector firearms, which must also be registered, the ratio of guns to citizens in the US is quite low, though still above average for most nations. Admittedly, I imagine that the ratio would be raised quite a bit by the presence of illegal firearms, if there was any reliable way of tabulating their numbers. Quote:
Personally, I'd love to see the second amendment revisited, provided that the spirit of it remains the same. As citizens, it is our duty and our right to arm and defend ourselves against aggressors and the state, should circumstances warrant it. The fear of an armed populace is a deterrant to criminals of any kind, including criminal states, if weapon ownership is pervasive enough. That much I hold true. However, I would like to see a proper Constitutional stance on modern firearms; one that protects and encourages proper usage and training. For all their wisdom, the founding fathers could not have predicted the advances in small-arms technology, and this is one of the few areas in which I am willing to compromise on Constitutional principles, assuming that it is done in the proper spirit and fashion. As individuals, it is our right to defend ourselves, our families, and our possessions against both lawlessness and totalitarianism; to surrender it is to put ourselves at the mercy of the powerful and the immoral. With that right comes the responsibility to excercise it properly, that we might not become tyrants or criminals ourselves. Firearms are the modern weapons of choice when it comes to individual defense. Firearms are force incarnate, force to good or ill. As a free society, we have the responsibility to ensure that these weapons are freely available to the law-abiding citzenry, so long as responsibility and proper training can be demonstrated. How we decide to go about establishing what constitutes proof is something else again, but I feel that the idea is sound.
__________________
![]() I stole this sig from Task Force ![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Ocean Warrior
![]() Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Between test depth and periscope depth
Posts: 3,021
Downloads: 175
Uploads: 16
|
![]()
Something that must be kept in mind is statistics can be molded and shaped to ones point of view. Without being familiar with the AJPH, I can't say what their motives are for this "study" and how accurate the results are. But I will agree that a gun does not replace your brain. It's just an extra tool that may or may not help you in a potentially violent scenario.
__________________
USS Kentucky SSBN 737 (G) Comms Div 2003-2006 Qualified 19 November 03 Yes I was really on a submarine. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | ||
Ocean Warrior
![]() |
![]() Quote:
Further to what Sky just posted, We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables should also be explained... Confound variables are pretty much things which affected the results and offer an alternate explanation other then the proposed one. All forms of psychology research use various methods to avoid or at least limit confound variables as much as possible. In this case I would imagine that they made sure that the ratios of crime types (mugging, rape, home invasions) was balanced between the two groups to avoid skewing the results. This would be done as certain types of crime are probably more likely to incite violent behavior then others. Statistical analysis is also usually a pretty solid research method provided everything was done on the up and up by the research team. Statistics themselves cannot be molded provided they were gathered and calculated properly, but you can mold how they are presented to the public, as they do not understand statistics. As for the results I am not surprised by the results. Firearms will always escalate the probability of violent action, not suppress it. Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Soaring
|
![]()
Thanks, NeonSamurai, I wanted to explain confounding variables too, but forgot to do so while writing the above post.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Stowaway
Posts: n/a
Downloads:
Uploads:
|
![]()
Having guns around the house also increases the likelyhood of gun-related accidents etc.
I've also heard cops say that they are afraid when they go to a crime scene where everyone is armed. How are they supposed to know who the criminals are? |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Navy Seal
![]() Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: York - UK
Posts: 6,079
Downloads: 43
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
No surprise.
If your the type of person who is badass enough to be packing; your the kind of person Joe Mugger will be sure to shoot before he gets shot himself. Criminals don't feel the need to shoot old ladys in the same way they might feel safer if they shoot the guy in the NRA t-shirt. That is common sense and the study shows it. However, in defense of the pro-gun lobby, the study does not detect if you are less likely to be assaulted in the first place if you have a gun. Whilst having a gun may be counterproductive during a mugging, it may help prevent you being a mugging target at all. Thats is an important point. Of course, all these points and in the micro and it is in the macro that guns are arguably the most counter productive.
__________________
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|