quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

actual science on people who carry guns.

That was really quite an amusing read, Ken. Thanks for posting it. Quite aside from four paragraphs citing limitations resulting from uncontrolled variables, the authors note that:

Case participants with at least some chance to resist were typically either 2-sided, mutual combat situations precipitated by a prior argument or 1-sided attacks where a victim was face-to-face with an offender who had targeted him or her for money, drugs, or property.

In cases of argument resulting in mutual combat, the shooter was considered the "offender" and one who got shot a victim of "defensive gun use". Well that's certainly convenient, but let's not quibble. Things get worse.

compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking.

I mean, seriously. They acknowledge that the control group is not a valid control group, but they just forge ahead and treat it as one anyway. Step right up folks, "Actual Science" inside!

The principle conclusion to be derived from this farce is that anyone confronted with armed assailants is usually wiser to give them what they want than to go for a gun and get into a shoot-out. And that's certainly good advice, for anyone stupid enough to need it. But the only remarkable discovery here is how many stupid people there are in Philadelphia.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Now here is a good story on one of those NRA law abiding gun owners if there is such a thing..

http://americablog.com/2013/02/vigilante-walmart-shopper-opens-fire-on-shoplifter-hits-three-cars.html

LMAO. From the link -

I know that right after I was violently mugged a little over ten years ago – the two kids tried to strangle me, and did a pretty good job of it – I got a call from someone at the Gun Owners of America, a group to the right of the NRA. They were writing a story, and wanted to include my mugging, and the guy asked me “don’t you wish you had a gun?” And I told him, yes, because I would have gladly shot the kids who tried to kill me, but then I’d probably have been so upset by the attack that I’d have missed the shot and instead hit the young couple standing right behind the kids as they were trying to get away.

What an article.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

I also forgot to mention they also found Adams NRA membership card...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Oh come on now, you have taken worst pro gun studies as godspell.

The word you want is gospel, and that would be wrong too. But let's not quibble. Name one.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Oh come on now, you have taken worst pro gun studies as godspell.

The word you want is gospel, and that would be wrong too. But let's not quibble. Name one.

yes you have taken some really questionable pro gun studies as the gospel

Name one.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

I also forgot to mention they also found Adams NRA membership card...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

actual science on people who carry guns.

That was really quite an amusing read, Ken. Thanks for posting it. Quite aside from four paragraphs citing limitations resulting from uncontrolled variables, the authors note that:

Case participants with at least some chance to resist were typically either 2-sided, mutual combat situations precipitated by a prior argument or 1-sided attacks where a victim was face-to-face with an offender who had targeted him or her for money, drugs, or property.

In cases of argument resulting in mutual combat, the shooter was considered the "offender" and one who got shot a victim of "defensive gun use". Well that's certainly convenient, but let's not quibble. Things get worse.

compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking.

I mean, seriously. They acknowledge that the control group is not a valid control group, but they just forge ahead and treat it as one anyway. Step right up folks, "Actual Science" inside!

The principle conclusion to be derived from this farce is that anyone confronted with armed assailants is usually wiser to give them what they want than to go for a gun and get into a shoot-out. And that's certainly good advice, for anyone stupid enough to need it. But the only remarkable discovery here is how many stupid people there are in Philadelphia.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

I also forgot to mention they also found Adams NRA membership card...

Serial killer Ren Faire Attendee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Lake

" He was married again in 1981 to Claralyn Balasz, a woman he had met while working at a renaissance fair in 1977."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Serial killer Ren Faire Attendee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Lake

" He was married again in 1981 to Claralyn Balasz, a woman he had met while working at a renaissance fair in 1977."

Ut oh. His own petard. That's gotta hurt.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The control group was a similiar sized cohort from the same geographic area chosen randomly. That is pretty much the ideal control for something like this.

A merely "similar sized cohort" isn't an "ideal control" for fucking anything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The result is damning. Carrying a gun makes you nearly 4.5 times more likely to be shot than if you are not carrying.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The result is damning. Carrying a gun makes you nearly 4.5 times more likely to be shot than if you are not carrying.

So not carrying makes the Perp 4.5x as likely to succeed in his nefarious ways?

Ya know why some dogs roll over and pee themselves?