Penn study: Carrying gun raises 4x risk of getting shot

[doeriver]

Penn study: Carrying gun raises risk of getting shot
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/health_science/weekly/20091012_Penn_study__Carrying_gun_raises_risk_of_getting_shot.html

By Faye Flam
Inquirer Staff Writer
October 12, 2009

Meleanie Hain of Lebanon used to tell the news media that she carried a Glock 26 pistol everywhere she went to protect herself and her children. Then last week she was shot to death by her husband in what police called a murder-suicide.

For years, researchers have been trying to investigate whether carrying a gun is protective or risky. But getting the answer through science has proved elusive. Now, University of Pennsylvania researcher Charles Branas has tried a new tack - employing methods normally used by epidemiologists to study cancer and other diseases.

Branas compared a group of shooting victims to a similar set of "controls" who had not been shot. His results, he said, show that guns did not, on average, protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault - and in fact raised the risk by four times or more.

"People shouldn't feel that firearms are going to enhance their safety," said Branas. The study was published in the current issue of the prestigious American Journal of Public Health.

Several statisticians, however, called this conclusion a stretch, and questioned whether the Penn group could account for all differences between the shooting victims and the comparison group.

Where the experts do agree is on the need for solid scientific information about the risks or benefits of guns. That applies especially to Philadelphia, where, on average, five people get shot every day, one of them fatally. More research could help lawmakers formulate gun policies to stem the carnage.

...(more at hyperlink above)

[HopeHoops]

1. The Harrisburg Patriot-News (very conservative paper) has covered this extensively.

Hain was an attention whore. The real issue wasn't that she had a gun, but rather that she was reckless with it. The first photo they had of her showed her young child hugging her legs with his hand on the gun in an open hip holster - and yes, it was loaded. That was the main reason the judge revoked her permit to carry. Even after he restored it, she continued to push the issue for the media attention. Fifteen minutes wasn't enough fame for her.

As for the issue of whether possession is "safety or risk", that situation isn't even relevant. Her husband shot her from behind while she was doing dishes and chatting with a friend on her laptop. He killed himself almost immediately afterward. They were known to have rather loud and regular arguments. I think the Inquirer article is just completely off base. They're using an apple to explain why an orange has slices.

I don't see any relationship between what happened with her and her gun at the soccer game and the reason for her death. It seems the murder-suicide was not a matter of if or why, just one of when.

[virginia mountainman]

2. Don't forget..Her husband, that SHOT HER...

Was a prison guard.

He was one of the "select few" that Gun Control advocates claim they DON"T want disarmed..

[doeriver]

3. The statisical report is the bulk of this story...not Meleanie Hain

For years, researchers have been trying to investigate whether carrying a gun is protective or risky. But getting the answer through science has proved elusive. Now, University of Pennsylvania researcher Charles Branas has tried a new tack - employing methods normally used by epidemiologists to study cancer and other diseases.

Branas compared a group of shooting victims to a similar set of "controls" who had not been shot. His results, he said, show that guns did not, on average, protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault - and in fact raised the risk by four times or more.

"People shouldn't feel that firearms are going to enhance their safety," said Branas. The study was published in the current issue of the prestigious American Journal of Public Health.

...

Where the experts do agree is on the need for solid scientific information about the risks or benefits of guns. That applies especially to Philadelphia, where, on average, five people get shot every day, one of them fatally. More research could help lawmakers formulate gun policies to stem the carnage.

But gun research is fraught with difficulty, the experts say. Not only is it politically and emotionally charged but privacy issues also make it hard to get large-scale data on who owns a gun and who carries one.

Branas, a former paramedic trained as an epidemiologist, designed an ambitious study that he said stemmed from his experience transporting victims of urban violence.

For this study, he and his colleagues relied on the cooperation of police to get information on shootings in Philadelphia between 2003 and 2006 - a total of 3,485.

The researchers got information as the shootings occurred - the location, the victims' description, and whether they had guns with them at the time.

Researchers randomly chose 677 of those victims for the study. They came from various occupations - taxi drivers, bartenders, nurses, and drug dealers. Fifty-three percent had criminal records. Six percent had guns with them when they were shot.

Branas then compared this "case" group with a group of "control" subjects - similar residents of Philadelphia who had not been shot. To choose the controls, they matched each victim with someone of the same race, age and sex. The controls - some had guns, some didn't - were called soon after each shooting took place and asked whether they had a gun close by during the same 15- to 30-minute interval. The goal was to see if those who got shot were likelier to have guns.

The controls were actually equally likely to have a gun with them, but more than 80 percent of them were at home at the time of the incident - a big possible difference - and many more people own guns than carry them. Only 9 percent of the victims were home when they were shot. Most were outdoors.

To arrive at their result, Branas said, he made statistical corrections for this and other factors that might influence a person's chance of being a victim - neighborhood type, a person's use of alcohol, and involvement in the drug trade, for example.

After all the corrections were put in, he and his colleagues concluded that the people in the study who were carrying a gun at any given time interval were more than four times as likely to be shot.

Branas offered several possible explanations. Having guns could induce people to behave differently, he said, perhaps emboldening them to stand up to attackers. Another possibility, he said, is that people are having their firearms turned on them.

(more at hyperlink above)

[doeriver]

4. Statistics not beliefs: gun owning risk actually reported as 4.46x to 5.45x greater

Use the email link above to send this information to your elected officials serving within the Tennessee General Assembly:

American Public Health Association - RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/11/2034?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Branas&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT
Charles C. Branas, PhD, Therese S. Richmond, PhD, CRNP, Dennis P. Culhane, PhD, Thomas R. Ten Have, PhD, MPH and Douglas J. Wiebe, PhD

Charles C. Branas and Douglas J. Wiebe are with the Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Firearm and Injury Center at Penn, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia. Therese S. Richmond is with the Division of Biobehavioral and Health Sciences, Firearm and Injury Center at Penn, and University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia. Dennis P. Culhane is with the Cartographic Modeling Laboratory, University of Pennsylvania School of Social Policy and Practice, Philadelphia. Thomas R. Ten Have is with the Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia.

...

Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.

Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.