People With Guns 4.5x More Likely To Be Shot In An Armed Assault

In a first of it's kind study, UPenn researchers claim that people carrying guns are 4.5x more likely to be shot in an assault than others. I know, I know, it's probably not *that* controversial, but I figured I'd start the thread here anyway.

In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

I will have to see the data, but I suspect that much of this has to do with folks possessing weapons as a substitute for a defensive mentality. Folks like that are, unfortunately, in abundance.

But people with guns were also infinitely more likely to shoot back after being shot in an armed assault than people without guns, and isn't that really what matters?

A is not caused by B, but both A and B are caused by C? My guess, anyway. Especially since there was no delineation (at least in the article) between those who had obtained legally vs. illegally.

I'm sure guys brandishing a knife are more likely to get shot, too. In fact, I'm sure guys who look at their attacker in a threatening manner are more likely to get killed.

Carrying a gun makes you a threat. People don't like threats. It's as simple as that. If you're unarmed and meek during an assault then your attacker has fewer reasons to kill you.

Is it gun possession that's the problem, or the lack of training in using the weapon or other factors that could lead to getting shot? If it's pure possession, why are we arming police officers? Or is it implying that the best choice, statistically, in which a criminal uses a weapon during an assault is submission?

Funkenpants wrote:

Is it gun possession that's the problem, or the lack of training in using the weapon or other factors that could lead to getting shot? If it's pure possession, why are we arming police officers? Or is it implying that the best choice, statistically, in which a criminal uses a weapon during an assault is submission?

I think it is a combination of all of the above. I am an avid gun collector and shooter, but have also run into more than my fair share of morons who think that owning a weapon is an adequate substitute for thinking through self defense scenarios. It is not the object per se, but the mentality surrounding the object that worries me.

Specifically, I'm referring to the observed fact that a statistically significant number of folks act like macho idiots whenever you hand them a gun. Things they would never consider (eg: hunting someone down in their backyard instead of locking the doors and calling the cops) somehow become "logical" with the addition of a firearm.

Paleocon wrote:

Things they would never consider (eg: hunting someone down in their backyard instead of locking the doors and calling the cops) somehow become "logical" with the addition of a firearm.

Isnt that what Half Life and L4D has trained us to do? I know thats what I'D do!

Ya ya, I'm not saying games have anything to do with it, but you make a good point. Unless you are a cop, locking the doors and calling one *should* be the first thing that comes to mind... not revenge.

PAR

Article wrote:

Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person’s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.

These shooting cases were matched to Philadelphia residents who acted as the study’s controls. To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting. This is the same approach that epidemiologists have historically used to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes.

It doesn't seem to identify whether or not the gun was seen by the attacker or whether or not the victim attempted to use it. The article doesn't indicate if the study mentioned if the gun was owned or carried legally. It certainly seems to show correlation but is there causation?

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Article wrote:

Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person’s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.

These shooting cases were matched to Philadelphia residents who acted as the study’s controls. To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting. This is the same approach that epidemiologists have historically used to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes.

It doesn't seem to identify whether or not the gun was seen by the attacker or whether or not the victim attempted to use it. The articles doesn't indicate if the study mentioned if the gun was owned or carried legally.

And I also suspect that a statistically significant number of folks who were shot were contributing perps to begin with. As I've mentioned before, patterns of violence are not random or arbitrary. If you get shot, it is usually for a reason. Being black on known gang street corner is a reason. Printing heat around a known gang hangout is another.

I would like to see the path analysis on this to find out how many of these shooting victims had prior criminal records themselves. This would help, to some extent, separate the folks who clearly were just perps on the wrong end of a gunfight and truly "random" citizens (armed or otherwise).

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Article wrote:

...they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun ...

Now I'm confused. Could someone who has more knowledge than my undergrad statistics class explain to me how 6% of shooting victims equals 4.5X more likely to be shot than the other 94% of people who were shot? Were those 94% just 70.47x unluckier than the armed victims?

I did not see where it mentioned where they had them legally or not. Because inner city kids, and gang members are about 6 times as likely to be shot, last I saw as people in the burbs.

What isn't covered here is how many people with guns weren't shot during an assault i.e. what's the rate of "succesful defense" for gun-toting assault victims?

Sure, pulling a gun may give you a higher chance of getting shot, but it may also give you a higher chance of not continuing to be assaulted.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

It doesn't seem to identify whether or not the gun was seen by the attacker or whether or not the victim attempted to use it. The article doesn't indicate if the study mentioned if the gun was owned or carried legally. It certainly seems to show correlation but is there causation?

Follow the link at the end of the article to the abstract:

Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P<.05).

People who tried to play cowboy got shot more.

As for gun ownership, you can thank Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) for keeping gun trace information--which figures out the ownership of a gun from crime scene to manufacturer--from the public. The only info I could find on carry status is that Philly has issued around 30,000 concealed carry permits (up from 800 back in 1995).

OG_slinger wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

It doesn't seem to identify whether or not the gun was seen by the attacker or whether or not the victim attempted to use it. The article doesn't indicate if the study mentioned if the gun was owned or carried legally. It certainly seems to show correlation but is there causation?

Follow the link at the end of the article to the abstract:

Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P<.05).

People who tried to play cowboy got shot more.

As for gun ownership, you can thank Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) for keeping gun trace information--which figures out the ownership of a gun from crime scene to manufacturer--from the public. The only info I could find on carry status is that Philly has issued around 30,000 concealed carry permits (up from 800 back in 1995).

Again you bring this up? Also, why do you think the public has a right to access privacy information? Yes, the government has me on a list because I bought a gun. I sure as hell don't want you or anyone else looking at that list unless they have a law enforcement function/warrant.

Shoal07 wrote:

Again you bring this up? Also, why do you think the public has a right to access privacy information? Yes, the government has me on a list because I bought a gun. I sure as hell don't want you or anyone else looking at that list unless they have a law enforcement function/warrant.

I was about to type exactly that Shoal. The government should have this information. It's important information from a law enforcement perspective. Why do you think YOU should have it OG? Should you also be able to track my automobile and television purchases?

OG_slinger wrote:

Follow the link at the end of the article to the abstract:

Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P<.05).

People who tried to play cowboy got shot more.

That's odd wording. It doesn't say they actually attempted to resist, merely that they had the chance.

OG_slinger wrote:

As for gun ownership, you can thank Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) for keeping gun trace information--which figures out the ownership of a gun from crime scene to manufacturer--from the public. The only info I could find on carry status is that Philly has issued around 30,000 concealed carry permits (up from 800 back in 1995).

Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether the victims had a gun illegally. A felon cannot touch a gun. In Pennsylvania, you cannot carry a concealed handgun without a license. Neither of these have anything to do with tracing.

Shoal07 wrote:

Again you bring this up? Also, why do you think the public has a right to access privacy information? Yes, the government has me on a list because I bought a gun. I sure as hell don't want you or anyone else looking at that list unless they have a law enforcement function/warrant.

Do you even know what a gun trace is? Unless you killed someone and left your gun at the scene of your crime, you'd never be affected by gun traces. Gun traces are used to find out who owned the damn thing and how many hands it passed through. It's handy for figuring out interesting things like which licensed gun dealers should be shut down because too many of their guns are ending up at crime scenes and which manufacturers are *really* responsible for the guns that are killing people.

If you keep your nose clean you got nothing to worry about traces.

Teneman wrote:

I was about to type exactly that Shoal. The government should have this information. It's important information from a law enforcement perspective. Why do you think YOU should have it OG? Should you also be able to track my automobile and television purchases?

Again, gun traces are different than any scary government list the NRA blathers on about.

No offense to you or Shoal07, but the palatible fear of gun owners have about lists makes me really wonder what they're afraid of.

Kehama wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Article wrote:

...they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun ...

Now I'm confused. Could someone who has more knowledge than my undergrad statistics class explain to me how 6% of shooting victims equals 4.5X more likely to be shot than the other 94% of people who were shot? Were those 94% just 70.47x unluckier than the armed victims?

It sounds to me that they found that roughly 1.3% of Philadelphians own a gun (or maybe a carry permit?), but 6% of shooting victims had a gun in their possession at the time, which means you're 4.5 times more likely to be a shooting victim as a gun owner than a non-owner.

Odd that it seems you didn't notice that neither Shoal07 nor I have any problem with the government having the lists.

Can you explain again why YOU have any right to them? Law enforcement doesn't tend to turn other components of their investigations over to random public perusal, why should this particular set of information be available?

EDIT: And don't think this is something I believe because the "NRA blathers on about" it (I haven't listened to a thing the NRA's said in 20 years by the way).

I'm a licensed attorney. A certified public accountant. A gun owner. I've had several in depth background checks done on me by the FBI. I'm on more government lists than any three people. I don't have a problem with the government having any of this information about me, but I sure as heck don't think you or anyone else outside of the appropriate governmental office has any right to it whatsoever.

OG_slinger wrote:

It's handy for figuring out interesting things like which licensed gun dealers should be shut down because too many of their guns are ending up at crime scenes and which manufacturers are *really* responsible for the guns that are killing people.

Oh yes, you need a gun trace to figure out who made the gun despite the manufacturer's name being written on the side. And despite the fact that a gun trace starts at the manufacturer and goes forward from there, not the other way around.

And who do you propose is going to shut down the shady dealers? The law enforcement agencies who already have access to the trace data?

Teneman wrote:

Can you explain again why YOU have any right to them? Law enforcement doesn't tend to turn other components of their investigations over to random public perusal, why should this particular set of information be available?

Why do you have a right to see who's a registered sex offender in your neighborhood?

But to answer your question: because my tax dollars paid for the police, the ATF, and the trace itself.

Because early use of the information showed that there are quite a few firearms dealers who should be stripped of their license because too many traces were coming back to them.

Because there are some handgun manufacturers whose products show up way too frequently at crime scenes.

Because this information would be critical for other policy decisions, like whether or not people should be able to resell firearms on their own. If too many guns from gun shows end up at crime scenes, then it would be a reasonable change to disallow said sales.

If you keep your nose clean you got nothing to worry about traces

or wire tap, or email checking, or bank record perusals. Doesn't matter if your nose is clean, unless theirs a important valid reason, I don't want anyone checking.

OG_slinger wrote:
Teneman wrote:

Can you explain again why YOU have any right to them? Law enforcement doesn't tend to turn other components of their investigations over to random public perusal, why should this particular set of information be available?

Why do you have a right to see who's a registered sex offender in your neighborhood?

But to answer your question: because my tax dollars paid for the police, the ATF, and the trace itself.

Because early use of the information showed that there are quite a few firearms dealers who should be stripped of their license because too many traces were coming back to them.

Because there are some handgun manufacturers whose products show up way too frequently at crime scenes.

Because this information would be critical for other policy decisions, like whether or not people should be able to resell firearms on their own. If too many guns from gun shows end up at crime scenes, then it would be a reasonable change to disallow said sales.

One, I edited my original post apparently while you were posting this. Doubt it changes any of what you said, but just an FYI.

Two, what does any of what you said here have to do with why the public should have a right to this information? As Quintin said, the law enforcement agencies and policy makers who would be doing the things you suggest already have the information. And to quote myself from earlier, the public doesn't have any right to other information involved in a criminal investigation, why is THIS information different?

OG_slinger wrote:
Teneman wrote:

Can you explain again why YOU have any right to them? Law enforcement doesn't tend to turn other components of their investigations over to random public perusal, why should this particular set of information be available?

Why do you have a right to see who's a registered sex offender in your neighborhood?

You're equating having access to gun trace lists to the list for registered sex offenders? That's disgusting and insulting.

Not every trace is related to a shooting or criminal investigation. The BATF has said so on numerous occasions. The traces themselves don't indicate the reason for the trace because they originate from outside of the BATF.

There's a good bet that a lot, probably most, of the traces involve a gun used in a crime.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

And who do you propose is going to shut down the shady dealers? The law enforcement agencies who already have access to the trace data?

Let's see, the ATF grants about 8,000 new FFL a year, physically inspects less than half those new dealers, and inspects a shamefully small percentage of the existing 80,000+ dealers. And when they find nearly 2,000 dealers every year with 80+ violations each, you'd think they'd shut those 2,000 dealers down, right? Wrong. They'll shut down maybe 50 max.

It's clear they need a bit of public prodding and oversight to do their jobs.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Teneman wrote:

Can you explain again why YOU have any right to them? Law enforcement doesn't tend to turn other components of their investigations over to random public perusal, why should this particular set of information be available?

Why do you have a right to see who's a registered sex offender in your neighborhood?

You're equating having access to gun trace lists to the list for registered sex offenders? That's disgusting and insulting.

QFT.

OG_slinger wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

And who do you propose is going to shut down the shady dealers? The law enforcement agencies who already have access to the trace data?

Let's see, the ATF grants about 8,000 new FFL a year, physically inspects less than half those new dealers, and inspects a shamefully small percentage of the existing 80,000+ dealers. And when they find nearly 2,000 dealers every year with 80+ violations each, you'd think they'd shut those 2,000 dealers down, right? Wrong. They'll shut down maybe 50 max.

It's clear they need a bit of public prodding and oversight to do their jobs.

This is no different then the FDA or USDA. Actually, this is how EVERY government oversight office functions. Why? Budget and resources. It's why peanut butter was killing people too. These offices can't inspect everyone, and if you want them too, then we have to raise taxes to pay for it. A lot.

OG_slinger wrote:

Let's see, the ATF grants about 8,000 new FFL a year, physically inspects less than half those new dealers, and inspects a shamefully small percentage of the existing 80,000+ dealers. And when they find nearly 2,000 dealers every year with 80+ violations each, you'd think they'd shut those 2,000 dealers down, right? Wrong. They'll shut down maybe 50 max.

It's clear they need a bit of public prodding and oversight to do their jobs.

But none of that has to do with traces. Violation information isn't restricted to law enforcement, as far as I know.

Shoal07 wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

And who do you propose is going to shut down the shady dealers? The law enforcement agencies who already have access to the trace data?

Let's see, the ATF grants about 8,000 new FFL a year, physically inspects less than half those new dealers, and inspects a shamefully small percentage of the existing 80,000+ dealers. And when they find nearly 2,000 dealers every year with 80+ violations each, you'd think they'd shut those 2,000 dealers down, right? Wrong. They'll shut down maybe 50 max.

It's clear they need a bit of public prodding and oversight to do their jobs.

This is no different then the FDA or USDA. Actually, this is how EVERY government oversight office functions. Why? Budget and resources. It's why peanut butter was killing people too. These offices can't inspect everyone, and if you want them too, then we have to raise taxes to pay for it. A lot.

Not only that but it seems, since you already have the data at hand that you quoted here, that you HAVE the information you need to give them some public prodding...