TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... illed.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lots of holes in this study...

Most likely not CHL holders but a bunch of thugs.

-Smily

That was a very uninformative article.

EDIT: Is "uninformative" a word?

Interesting that their initial citation was a 2003 study that has been discredited. Also interesting that they picked such a small sample and restricted it to residents of Philadelphia. I believe john Lott and the FBI have done similar studies and come to the exact opposite conclusion.

I don't know about you, but I tend to trust the FBI (well, on THIS topic, anyway ).

Smily wrote:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... illed.html

Lots of holes in this study...

Most likely not CHL holders but a bunch of thugs.

-Smily

The study might have had some value if they had limited the study to those who lawfully carried guns at the time of the incident. The other factors they controlled for were much less important, and the manner in which it was conducted makes it essentially a propaganda piece, quite likely funded by one of the organizations that is focused on filling the research record with junk science that judges can refer to when gun rights cases come up in the courts.

Im generally a big fan of Newscientist, but this is a very disappointing article.

Such narrow research with a broad broad title that can be easily manipulated.


-Smily

here is a link to the abstract of the study referenced (2008, not 2003). I will try to look it up at the library to get more of the research.

I want to check how many were legally carrying and how many were breaking the law when they were shot. The real problem is how they picked the control group. They selected 684 people as a control group. This can invalidate the study if the control group was not selected properly. Normally a study of rates liek this is done by comparing the study group to the population overall (so, compare the rate of being shot for the 677 to the rate of being shot for all Philadelphia residents).

My courses in research are making me question a lot of statistics more.

Here's a pretty good analysis on how the basic premises of the study are inherently flawed: http://volokh.com/2009/10/05/guns-did-n ... n-assault/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NRA just got ahold of it.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Feder ... px?id=5168" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Facing a mugger who has the upper hand already who has caught me off guard is not the reason I carry.

I carry because if I am sitting with my family in a restaraunt, mall, or any public place and a gunmen starts shooting people and he doesnt get me first I have a chance to pull my weapon and possibly save my family.

If I cant pull and not have the upper hand I am going to look for alternatives to get out of the situation.

I am not Billy the Kid and I dont intend to be.

The people in Luby's, Virginia Tech, the McDonalds in California had plenty of opportunity to pull had they been carrying and could have saved their lives.

I dont care about hypothetical polls.

The last thing I want to be is sitting in a public place with numerous seconds to pull and not have my handgun.

For years before I started carrying publically I always looked for escape routes and was aware of my surroundings. That is part of what the Marine Corp drilled in my brain. Now that I carry I still look for escape routes, but I also no now that while my family are escaping the guy with the gun will be having .45 rounds lobbed his way if necessary.

at least they factored out gun suicides in this study