While believing that gun ownership is not the all-protective, all-perfect security measure that some pretend and proclaim it to be, I would like to see the whoe study.

The article doesn't really make clear if the "assault" was the crime that the perpetrators were carrying out or if the "assault" occurred as another crime was being carried out.

"Gun possession" isn't really specifically defined either. Was the "victim" in "possession" of a gun in his waist band merely on the wrong end of a drug deal gone bad?

If the main intent of the perpetrators was assault, wouldn't that assault likely have caused death or injury to the victims anyway.

But I do think it's a safe bet that if you are assaulted or robbed by someone under the influence of alcohol or drugs or both, and you attempt to defend yourself, in any way, the perpetrator is more likely to react impulsively and nastily.

Also, when it comes to protecting oneself against such a personal and traumatic event as a violent crime, I don't think anyone in this town is going to be influenced by a statistical study.

The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present.
President Abraham Lincoln 1862

right up to the point where you have to put their findings into a deadly situation. With the torture/rape/murder trial underway in Knoxville gun ownership has exploded . If either of those two students had been armed would they have died? We will never know but what we can be deadly certain of is because neither were armed both are dead.

As violence continues this upward growth cycle more and more citizens are becoming licensed to carry and at the same time more and more stories are being reported of citizens killing or wounding those who are trying to do them harm.

Today when the window breaks and someone enters your home dialing 911 after unloading a full clip in the general direction of the intruder is a practical and often life
saving action. Simple but again very effective.

(link...)

Today when the window breaks and someone enters your home dialing 911 after unloading a full clip in the general direction of the intruder is a practical and often life
saving action. Simple but again very effective.

Not "simple." Simplistic.

You've seen too many movies.

"general direction?"

You're merely confirming what many fear about gun owners in the first place.

And it shows you either failed to learn or chose to ignore simple gun safety rules:

1) Assume all weapons are loaded, all the time.

2) Never point your weapon at anything you do not intended to shoot.

3) Know your target.

4) Know what's behind your target

If the attitude you wrote is truly your belief, then you need to retake a gun safety course.

I pray when you're unloading your gun in the general direction that your spouse, kids, or significant other aren't in the general vicinity.

The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present.
President Abraham Lincoln 1862

The distance between my house and my neighbor's house.

Please note I have NO problem with gun ownership by educated and rational folks.

is not only very big but it is also a long way as in a of a mile from my nearest neighbor.

Also for unloading on someone coming into the home without
actually seeing their face...only if they kick in a window or a door.

Here is what a police officer told me about shooting someone who breaks in. First...shoot only three times, second check the body..second, if it is moving shoot it three more times. I can't make stuff like this up.

I have to agree about on the point about the murder/torture
car jack. Right now it is very hard to pin point why gun sales are through the roof. Lots of reasons including fear of more controls. Locally, there were numerous reports (media/WBIR ect) when the details came out of how these children were treated by the soon to be sentenced to death killer...of gun sales going up. The father or the
young murdered girl stated on WATE (when Gene Patterson ask
him if he had a gun) that not only does he "now" carry but so does his wife and other child.

Hail of bullets really isn't practical but again...when the glass breaks and it is coming in your home nothing from that point on "good" is going to happen to you.

We should all be advocates of getting the guns out of the hands of the bad guys and at the same time advocate putting them in the hands of those who known how to use them and when.

So, six percent of assault victims that get shot had a gun.

And if you call a "random" sampling of people who called the police to report a shooting (but were not involved in it, in any way and thus were not assault victims) and ask them: "were you carrying a gun when you called this in?", nearly all of them will say "no, I wasn't carrying a gun".

Even if the statistics on gun carry for the survey were correct (and self-reported statistics are almost always off by huge margins), the group selected has no relevant relationship to a group of assault victims.

Were the percentage of those in Philly with carry permits looked at vs. those assaulted, you can get another meaningless statistic (assault victims might skew higher in assaults or violent assaults by virtue of their jobs, since it's more profitable to rob people who deposit money in banks than those who are not behaving in a manner that suggest they have any money.

Yes, they could have had an actual study that examined the purported topic - comparing ALL assaults in the city to those where someone was shot, then looking at whether the victim had a gun (permitted), had a gun (not permitted), had a gun and used it (again, permitted or not) or didn't have a gun. Even then subgroups of data would have to be looked at (gang on gang violence would skew stats for "has a gun"; possessing a gun, but not making it visible in any way would put you in the same group as those without a gun, so far as how it might influence the assaulter; etc).

I suspect that (a) an actual study would have involved real work and someone who could actually design a defensible study and knew the pitfals of relying on sham statistics and (b) it was feared that such as study would not support the conclusion desired.

Essentially, this study tries to compare a group of assault victims (and a minor subset of those assaulted each year in the city, since the article cited five shootings a day and one death a day) to a group of citizens who report crimes (and who may have been in their houses, not even on the streets or in the buildings where the shootings occurred). Even if the two groups had anything in common, having a stranger ask you if you were carrying a gun while calling the police is likely to result in severe under-reporting and ignores those that might have had guns in the home that were not in their possession at the time.

Even if every assault happened in a store and every person who reported it were in the same store, you could not compare the two groups unless the assaults were only on customers (since the clerks are both more likely to be assaulted and to have a weapon, as they are more likely to be targeted than a random customer in their store) and if the police documented the carry status of each one at the time of the incident.

The only meaningful study they could have done would have been to compare shootings and death rates, as a percentage of all assaults where the attacker was armed, excluding all gang on gang violence, between those who were unarmed or chose not to show their weapons and those who were armed and those who were both armed and used their weapon. It'll probably have to be a multi-year study, though, to get enough into the latter group for the study to have any statistical relevance, though.

Here's something else that came out of the state of Pennsylvania:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I suppose one can use the U of Penn study to discourage folks from arming themselves if one wants to. Or they can use it for another purpose if the Libs get their way and take away or dumb down our toilet paper!

I wonder if we will see the insurance companies adding a question to health/life insurance applications asking if the applicant carries? Perhaps even in the liability lines they will ask new questions as well.

Are you a smoker?
Are you a drinker?
Non-heterosexual?
Do you own a dog? If so, name the breed.
Do you jump out of planes?
Do you own guns?
Do you have a HCP? If so, do you take your gun to a public park?

(Cue: "I need guns because of my guns!")

Another Cue: "I want guns and it is my right to own them regardless of why and regardless of how much it pisses off the Lefties!"

Here's a major headline: There are many of us who own guns for sport and hobby, not for self protection. In the realm of my possessions, I classify my guns (I own 4) right along side my fishing tackle. Do I really have the right to bear arms? Do I have the right to bear 10 lbs. test fishing line?

(link...)

In Philadelphia, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania find, possessing a gun is strongly associated with getting shot. Since "guns did not protect those who possessed them," they conclude, "people should rethink their possession of guns." This is like noting that possessing a parachute is strongly associated with being injured while jumping from a plane, then concluding that skydivers would be better off unemcumbered by safety equipment designed to slow their descent. "Can this study possibly be as stupid as it sounds?" asks Stewart Baker at Skating on Stilts. Having shelled out $30 for the privilege of reading the entire article, which appears in the November American Journal of Public Health, I can confirm that the answer is yes.

What might be funny is that you think a study might affect the voting of the Knox County Commission, unless it already supports their vote.

Meleanie Hain, who shocked other parents last year by showing up at her daughter's soccer game with a piece strapped to her side, has died along with her husband in what authorities are saying was a murder-suicide. The soccer mom incident had resulted in the loss of her carry permit but she managed to retrieve it.

The couple's three children, aged 2, 6, and 10, were in the home at the time of the carnage but were physically unhurt.

Visit us at:

The Home