Who let's actual facts get in the way of the oppinion that they think you should have?

There are a lot of numbers in the article (and undoubtedly more in the study), but to summarize what is in those immediate paragraphs:

Chance of Injury:

Victim takes no action at all: 11%
Victim used a gun in self defense: 10.9%
Victim "brandished a gun" AND injury occurred AFTER that (as opposed to before): 4.9%
Victim brandished some other weapon AND injury occurred after that (as opposed to before: 5.3%
Victim "ran away or hid": 2.4%
Victim called police: 2.3%

The 25% you cited is the difference between the 4.9 and 5.3 which are the rates for injury occurring AFTER a weapon is brandished and comparing a gun to another type of weapon. That's a subset of the larger data set (11 vs. 10.9) where the difference was 0.1 out of 11 (so 1% difference, not 25% difference).

Finally, don't confuse the article with the study. News articles frequently craft headlines that are a step removed from the data in the study. The data points are what matter.

To be perfectly fair the chance of injury when taking no action is 100% if the perpetrator wants that to be the case.

Yes, of course, as in the case of rape.

For non-violent crimes, we have to hope any responsible gun-carrying person can judge when drawing a firearm is likely to escalate a non-violent crime into a violent crime.

What's amusing is the theft cases, which you might think of as the more common non-violent crimes (guy wants your wallet) but the people who used a gun were actually statistically more likely to have property taken than those who didn't (38.5% vs. 34.9%). I suppose this could include home invasions as well (one guy stays upstairs and calls the police & robbers get busted or run off without stuff when they hear sirens, etc. vs. other guy who goes down to confront them and gets injured in the process and robbers still make off with stuff after beating him up).

Its easy to come up with examples of each type. The devil is in the details, so they say.

As in the case for anything, not just rape...


If you take no action, and the perpetrator wants to harm you, 100% you're getting hurt, as elfy stated.

And I agreed, even citing one example. what is your point?

part of mine is that it's impossible to do a study when the major factor in the study is random

So then, after brandishing a gun, you are less than HALF as likely to be injured as before brandishing it. This seems to make the headline of the article even more of a bald-faced lie.



Agreed

I see it as biased based on the tone in which the data is presented For example

"and shows not only that so-called “defensive gun use” (DGU) rarely protects a person from harm,"
was it necessary to use the phrase "so-called" in a scientific paper... or are they using this phrase to shape perception?

and for further perception shaping here is a little gem thrown in to attack the pro-gun advocates as no longer having a solid case to base their arguments upon.

"pro-gun advocates have been forced to argue" <-- says who??

"In response to GVA data, pro-gun advocates have been forced to argue that the reason researchers can barely find .064 percent of the 2.5 million DGUs a year claimed by Kleck and Gertz is because virtually nobody reports their defensive gun use to the police. This argument is problematic. For starters, it would seem to imply that the vast majority of people using guns in self-defense are irresponsible citizens who use their firearm to ward off an attempted crime, and then, perhaps uncertain about the legality of their action, are leery of interacting with the police. It would also imply that while these citizens ostensibly stopped a crime serious enough to justify brandishing a firearm, they aren’t at all concerned about informing the police about a criminal who remains on the street."

I like how the above is worded to imply or shape the perception of how if pro gun advocates are correct then the majority of those using a gun in self-defense are unconcerned and irresponsible citizens brandishing their weapons illegally... i.e. to account for the unreported cases.

and with glaring propaganda examples attempting to shape the perception of how this data should be interpreted, you expect me to accept this as a valid piece of science? Take the propaganda out and then we may have something to discuss regarding the numbers and what they represent.

--------------------------------------------

A study such as this one is open to interpretation, and highly subjective in how it is interpreted. For example I can take this data and spin it in such a way as to demonstrated how lowering gun ownership would have no effect in stopping crimes from occurring. Therefore banning or attempting to take guns away from the general public would not make the general public any safer. If your statistics are correct and gun ownership has no affect on the overall safety of a person then taking their gun(s) away will not improve their situation either way. Why spend money in confiscating guns if it has no impact on the general safety of the public. The money should be spent on programs where the impact of said expenditure can be shown to improve public safety in some quantifiable manner.

Nice, well reasoned argument mfrost. :) They are going to be hating on you for sure now. LOL

Two teens suspected of killing five relatives in Oklahoma - http://www.bbc.co.uk/.../world-us-canada-33641919

Ban knives too.

No, you are misreading the data. You are not less than half as likely to be injured as before brandishing it. The 10.9/11 percent statistics had to do with the total risk of being injured at any time. The 4.9/5.3 percent statistics had to do with injury occurring AFTER brandishing the weapon (a subset of total injuries, if you know Venn diagrams). You cannot compare those two sets, only the two within each set.

I agree with much of what you say above, except for one part. You use the word "it" in your first sentence, which clearly refers to the ARTICLE written ABOUT the study, which I agree has the bias phrasing you mention. In the last sentence above you use the phrase "expect me to accept THIS as a valid piece of science". There are two problems with that. Clearly, the news article is not a valid piece of anything (although it may be attempting to be a valid piece of journalism). The STUDY is not SCIENCE because it didn't use the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. The study itself is more or less an analysis/report on the data in the database. I do consider the "study" to be presenting some interesting information, which the "article" references. The article actually discusses more than just the new "study" and refers to many other studies and datasets as well.

Virtually no public news article on the internet is peer-reviewed the way a professional journal is. That is also why the full text of the Harvard/Vermont study is on the Journal's site (behind a paywall unless your local library has access). The abstract doesn't say a lot by itself.




Yes, which is why I have pointed out that neither the study nor the article call for any sort of gun control position. you are correct that the results might justify either position depending on your view.

well all i would say to that Atryn is the article is not doing Harvard any favors in presenting their study in such a biased and propaganda filled manner. Unles this is how Harvard wanted their study to be interpreted, in which case the study was just a hit piece for interested parties.

Although I must say most of the media these days has a slant one way or another, professional journalism of simply presenting the facts is very rare these days.

mFrost

the thing is that where I live we got 0 accidents of kids shooting their parents or sibblings etc etc etc while I read pretty much daily about accidents like that happening in the US sure you can pull the gun is just a tool part blah blah unfortunately most people arent very intelligent and handing a tool invented to kill with to stupid people is just a bad combination no matter what anyone says or claims

personally id be more scared going out knowing that every dumbass in the city is carrying a gun then the opposite

that is all

fluff!