Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

U of Penn 'study' authors admit glaring flaw

Just about anyone interested in gun rights has probably heard about the "study," appearing in the American Journal of Public Health, claiming that possessing a gun increases the likelihood (somehow) of being shot, by a factor of 4.46. Led by Charles Branas (who, as David points out, is a beneficiary of Joyce Foundation anti-gun largesse), the study looked at gun ownership in Philadelphia over a period of a few years, and came to the above . . . remarkable conclusion.

Others, like Clayton Cramer, have done a good job of pointing out numerous problems with the study, such as the fact that it made no distinction between peaceable gun owners who have no inclination toward nefarious behavior, and gangbanger thugs who can't wait to show how tough they are by shooting it out with other gangbanger thugs, or with the police.

Like I said, the above is kinda old news--I just included it as background, and a refresher. The new part is something I picked up from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), which in turn quotes an article by Ronald Bailey, of Reason Magazine. It's a February article, and not available online yet, but NCPA provides a tantalizing quote.

According to Reason magazine, however, the one explanation the researchers do not mention is that people who anticipate violent confrontations -- such as drug dealers, frequently robbed bodega owners, and women with angry ex-boyfriends -- might be especially likely to possess guns, just as people likely who jump out of airplanes are especially likely to possess parachutes.

The authors acknowledge that they did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault -- that is, the possibility that a high risk of being shot causes gun ownership, as opposed to the other way around.
In other words, the authors admit that an extremely obvious weakness in their theory of a causal relationship between gun ownership and being shot is left completely unaddressed.

That would seem, pretty much, to be an admission that the entire "study" is a worthless, steaming heap of . . . propaganda.


Anonymous said...

This explains the new logo of the Brady center - a collage of the hands of Sarah Brady, Cindy Shehan and Barak Obongo grasping a shovel and lifting a huge steaming pile of excrement, with the caption -

We Shovel the Sh*t for Your Safety!
-j III

Bob S. said...

Notice how this issue won't get any play in the media the way the original "study" did.

Control Advocates will cite it repeatedly and people will fail to note the issue -- because we trust people to do things right.

Good work in pointing out the bias.