How do you guys deal with this anti argument?

[uniballin]

You're more likely to be killed while carrying a gun, look up the statistics.

I had someone say this to me on another forum. I presume that they are referring to the biased University of Pennsylvania study referred to here.

I want to respond with my own statistics but I don't know of any... but I bet you guys know some that I can throw back at him .

[GunLawyer001]

First, it's not true.

Second, to the extent that there's a correlation between carrying a gun and being involved in violence, well, it's a self-selected group. American cops with guns are more likely to be shot than American cops without guns; that's not because guns make them less safe, it's because the cops without guns are back at the station, filing reports and answering 911 calls. People who live in bad neighborhoods are more likely to have guns handy, and more likely to need them.

[uniballin]

Thanks Phil; nice analogy.

[LittleRedToyota]

i explain how the academics who did that study are either so ignorant of the science of statistics and empirical research methods or so intellectually dishonest they should be stripped of their PhDs.

then i explain in general about causation vs. correlation and lurking variables.

then i specifically point out how people who are more likely to get shot are more likely to carry guns (as opposed to the other way around)...duh...and so, yeah, no shit sherlock--the precentage of shooting victims who carry guns likely is higher than the precentage of the population in general who carry guns. after all, a much larger percentage of gangbangers carry guns than the percentage of non-gangbangers who carry guns. and, a much larger percentage of gangbangers get shot than non-gangbangers.

but, the important thing to understand here is that there is no causal relationship. gangbangers don't get shot because they are carrying a gun. they get shot because they are gangbangers.

so, no, carrying a gun does not actually make you more likely to get shot. or, at least, that study that would have gotten an F in stastical analysis 101 doesn't show that...and i have never seen any other study that does either.

on the other hand, gary kleck has used US DOJ national crime victim survey data to show that the highest probability of surviving a violent crime without being seriously injured is to resist with a gun. (i don't have the link handy, but a google search will find it. also, i have posted it on this forum in the past, so you could search for posts by me with gary kleck in them or something.) if you are targeted, what response gives you the best chance of surviving without serious injury?

there is no evidence that carrying a gun makes you more likely to be targeted. there is some evidence that responding to being targeted with a gun provides the highest probability of not being seriously hurt.

[FNG19]

I want to respond with my own statistics but I don't know of any... but I bet you guys know some that I can throw back at him .

Counter-example: Chicago has a huge gun violence problem, but has no citizen CCW/CCP/LTCF/CWP, and strict gun control. NYC, ditto. DC, ditto. LA, ditto. If his facts were true, Philly, which has many, many LTCF's issued would have a far higher gun violence rate than DC, the murder capital of the country. I leave looking up the statistics an exercise to the reader.

Counter-example: Fort Hood
Counter-example: Columbine
Counter-example: Mumbai
Counter-example: LA gym murder-suicide from earlier in the year
Counter-example: Holocaust Museum shootings from earlier in the year

[Internet Protocol Freely]

Check out this site. it has a pdf with tons of gun facts with statistics and charts and all sorts of stuff with references

http://www.gunfacts.info/

Gun control myth debunked in Gun Facts include (but are in no way limited to):

* Gun Shows
* Assault Weapons
* Sniping Rifles - Sniper Rifles
* Handguns For Women Handgun Sales
* Violence and Violent Crime
* 2nd Amendment Issue
* "Pocket Rockets" and "Saturday Night Specials"
* Concealed Carry and Concealed Weapons Permits
* Licensing and Registration
* Firearm Deaths (Homicide, Accidents)
* Social Costs of Guns
* Children and Guns



* Automatic Weapons
* 50 Caliber Rifles
* Microstamping
* Ballistic Fingerprinting
* Assault Weapons Ban
* Crime Gun Traces
* International Gun Ownership and Crime
* Gun Dealers
* Gun Control Statistics
* Deadly Force Encounters
* Guns, Crime, Criminology and Crime Prevention (Self Defense)
* Firearm Availability
* Guns and Police (Law Enforcement/LEO)

[MostlyHarmless]

You're more likely to be killed while carrying a gun, look up the statistics.

You mean the same statistics, that one should not trust unless one actually had a hand in screwing them?

This example is like the one that says "parachutes are dangerous, because people using parachutes are xy.z% more likely to be killed in an aircraft related accident." Great statistics! Got any hard numbers?


That would be my response.


Jan

[t1m0thy]

I'm more likely to be killed driving a car than carrying a gun yet we all drive on a daily basis. You give up your car and I'll give up my gun.

[emsjeep]

http://forum.pafoa.org/news-123/7857...assaulted.html

I went out and bought the article...unless you have some sort of science or research background and some knowledge of statistics it won't make any sense to you, but check out my thread here for the real story behind that paper

Well, I heard some DJ bashing carriers ont he radio today so I went home and fired off some e-mails, I'll quote myself for time, but this study is crap for several reasons....this is a NY- Long Island local station, but the study is relevant here:


Quote:
I was listening to the radio tonight and heard the tail end of a gun bashing session around 10PM. I, being a scientist, looked into the study mentioned by the host who exuberantly bashed gun owners and carriers, expecting to find some way to contest the simplified tag line “Gun carriers 4 times more likely to be shot”. I purchased the article and read my way through it and it turns out to have some major flaws. Among other issues it seems that there is no distinction between criminals and civilian victims. Time and again the authors mention drugs, alcohol and criminal records in relation to the enrolled shooting case victims and even note: “However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupation, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of the 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.”

The authors simply failed to study an accurate control population, or rather, assumed incorrectly that the vast majority of those involved in gun assaults were comparable to the general population of the city. The final message of this article is that crime is rampant in low income areas known for drug trafficking, and that criminals carry guns illegally and shoot one another. The study has nothing to do with good, honest citizens with no criminal records who fail to frequent areas of drug trafficking and violence. I tune in to your station for music, not political ranting. The gun community, and even more the scientific community, deserves your stations public apology and clarification for pushing an agenda and inspiring fear and panic for those who take on the responsibility of protecting themselves and their families in these uncertain times.
Respectfully,
Alex

There were some other problems with the study and the authors talk about and admit it, such as, the fact that it only applies to urban adults etc. I don't have time to reproduce the whole thing now, but maybe in the future. Its a protected PDF so I have to retype it into notpad to quote it.

[stephpd]

They use the same flawed logic with suicide statistics. Looking at the CDC numbers it would seem that it's a 50/50 chance that a gun will be used. So if you get rid of the gun you'd decrease the rate. But that just isn't true. It would lower the rate of suicides by firearms but increase the rate by other methods. Japan is a perfect example. Guns being illegal yet they have one of the highest suicide rates in the world. And none are by firearms.

Countries that have made firearms illegal all talk about the rate of murder by firearms being much lower.Yet their murder rates are up, mostly because there isn't a good way to protect themselves. It's gotten so bad in England that they want to ban kitchen knives now. They've already banned samurai swords. And from what I understand they've made it illegal to defend yourself and family in your own home.

All just to keep their numbers lower. Yet all it does is make it easier for criminals. It's all backwards logic to prove that a civilized society doesn't need guns to protect themselves. To bad the criminals aren't very civil.