If you have "no place to go," come here!

"Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault"

American Journal of Public Health:

After we adjusted for numerous confounding factors, gun possession by urban adults was associated with a significantly increased risk of being shot in an assault. On average, guns did not seem to protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses can and do occur, the findings of this study do not support the perception that such successes are likely.

A few plausible mechanisms can be posited by which possession of a gun increases an individual's risk of gun assault. 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.58–60 Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them.

Another gun culture myth.


Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Yet another case of ivory-tower claptrap...

A mountain of statistical calculations on a tiny data set, biased to prove prejudicial, pre-determined conclusions, and utterly ignoring that the FULL population data shows the simple fact that the crime rate continues to decline, in the face of record-breaking firearm sales the past 4 years.

I only hope they didn't waste too many tax dollars on this nonsense. 67 footnotes indeed!

Maybe they can quit giving the drug companies a pass on the REAL cause of mass shootings and other induced violence:

Submitted by lambert on

... to indict the study, but that's the claim the study makes. Here is the cilaim:

gun possession by urban adults was associated with a significantly increased risk of being shot in an assault.

Since you don't challenge that, I assume you that gun culture's claim that guns work for protection is false. For the rest of your indictment of the study, I need evidence, not words strung together. Finally, nice deflection on drugs. I don't see a reason we can't license guns like cars, and not induce violence with SSRI, assuming your anecdotal site is valid. Why can't we do two good things at a time (like walking and chewing gum)?

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

The claim is in the Conclusion: "On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault.", which is the takeaway.

That is pure crap.

Given the footnotes, as well as easily available public data, this study was evidently created to justify a predetermined conclusion and camouflauged with statistical window-dressing. It may be the result of incompetence, but more likely encouraged and funded as an effort at deliberate propaganda.

Here is the evidentiary data you asked for, which clearly contradicts the study's conclusions:

Crime & Population:

Background checks:

OBSERVATION: The crime rate in all categories declines steadily, starting BEFORE the 1994 - 2004 "assault weapons ban", continuing after it expired, and in particular, during the massive increases in recent ownership, evidenced by Background Checks.

Nor is a "deflection", as it documents nearly 5,000 cases of induced violence. Drug companies are being given a "pass" on the liability for this, and the professional academics ignore the facts, which are CLEARLY counter to the crime rate trend.

There is no more need to "license" guns than screwdrivers or kitchen knives; the average shooter can easily have as many of each, for different purposes. "License fees" impose an undue financial burden. Aside from the fact that cars are not "licensed", they are titled as real property and only "registered" when in regular use (as opposed to museum displays, private collections, etc.) No license is required merely to own a car.

Many things are deadly in the hands of someone with violence in mind, not just long metal objects.

Hope I didn't miss any of your main points...

Submitted by lambert on

... while repeating your original points at greater length. try harder. How about looking at the real study?

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

>>How about looking at the real study?

I did that. The pre-determined conclusion on which they based their facts is obvious; the data and assumptions were cherry-picked to support it.

They would probably make good economists...