Suggestion for a study on gun effectiveness for self-defense.

[GreenStormCloud]

There are 38 states that have shall-issue systems. There are millions of American who have CCW permits. For one year, determine the rate at which the CCW group falls victim to violent crime and is either killed or injured. All types of criminal violence must be considered, not just getting shot. Then compare that to the general crime rate, with criminal on criminal statistics removed.

In other words, the victimization rate for millions of CCW holders against the victimization rate for ordinary law-abiding citizens.

If CCW holders are using their guns to save themselves from violent crime, that should show up on a lower victimization rate for CCW holders.

Maybe the stats are already out there and someone with better research capabilities than mine can find them.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Easy. Compare gun-related deaths in the US to Canada and UK nt

[X_Digger]

3. Easy, compare an apple to an orange. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

4. No. You fail on several counts.

Guns can protect the user from knive assaults. The UK is having a rather serious knife problem right now.

You are including criminal on criminal assaults. I want the CCW victimization isolated from the general crime data.

You are counting only deaths and throwing out injuries.

But I don't think you were really trying for a serious reply, but were only going for snark.

[slackmaster]

5. Complete fail

Licensed concealed carry in Canada?

[burrfoot]

2. I like this idea

but I see a potential issue with confounding factors. What if those who make the effort to get a CCW also tend to be people who are more situationally aware? That could account for a decreased instance of victimization.
Also, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of CCW holders are either rural, at least relatively affluent, or both. This would also contribute to the decreased victimization stats.

There are sooooooo many factors involving differences between folks who do carry (or at least have a CCW)and those who don't that I'm not sure a study could ever address them.

(I didn't mean this as an attack. I do like your idea. Just enjoy discussing the details.)


:toast:

[GreenStormCloud]

6. Your points are well taken.

CCW holders do have the money to be able to get the CCW, so that is a definite factor. A CCW holder would have more options than just the gun. And the training in awareness and other defense training does come into play. In learning self-defense I have learned some amazing simple truths that make a huge difference in street safety, and without shooting anybody.

I am not at all offended by serious discussion. I just wish the antis would discuss seriously also.

[gorfle]

7. That is a big if.

If CCW holders are using their guns to save themselves from violent crime, that should show up on a lower victimization rate for CCW holders.

I think that is a large assumption.

It may very well be, for example, that people with the financial means to afford and carry a firearm legally are in socio-economic demographics that make them unlikely to be victims of crime. In other words, they may be carrying a firearm because the can, not because they need to.

Note that I do not begrudge people doing this. Being prepared is a virtue. The right to keep and bear arms is not based on anyone's perceived need.

I do not think there is any need to determine whether or not CCW holders are victims of crime at a higher or lower rate than the rest of society. It does not matter. All that matters is whether or not they are safe. I would love to see a study that indicates how likely CCW holders are to be involved in crime, and how likely they are to cause collateral damage when they use their firearms defensively. Currently available data suggests that they are many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to be involved in crime than non-CCW holders, and also suggests that they are less likely to cause collateral damage in a defensive shooting than police officers. But I would like to see a good, definitive study about this.

[GreenStormCloud]

9. Texas keeps those stats and posts them online.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

[Euromutt]

8. I have an alternative idea

The initial problem with Kellermann's NEJM 1993 study, and the forthcoming UPenn study, is that they start at the wrong end by taking as their study group people who have already been shot, and then comparing them to people who haven't. That makes it almost unavoidable that you're going to be stuck with a ton of variables that you have to control for; better to avoid that right off the bat.

What strikes me as a more useful starting point is to assemble a study group of private citizens who keep a firearm for home defense, or have a CCW permit and carry for self-protection, depending on what you specifically want to measure. Then, once you've established who your test subjects are, you assemble your controls by selecting ones who most closely resemble each individual test subject in every socio-economic and behavioral aspect except firearms ownership, so as to isolate that one variable to the greatest extent possible. I don't think there's any ethical issue when you're only asking people to do what they would have done anyway.

Then, over, say, a five-year period, you require the members of both the study and control group to report becoming the victim of any of a number of types of crimes, attempted or completed, such as assault (physical or sexual), robbery, "hot" burglary (while occupant is home), non-negligent manslaughter, and murder (obviously, in the case of the last two, if completed, somebody else will need to inform the researchers). At the end of the study, you tally up how many times members of either group have become victims of one of the crimes, break that down by foiled attempts vs. completed crimes, and crunch the numbers.

It's going to be comparatively expensive and time-consuming at the front end, and it may not even yield any statistically significant results, but any results you do get are going to be a damn sight more reliable than the econometric modeling garbage that the lines of Kellermann and Branas have engaged in.

[GreenStormCloud]

10. Expensive, indeed. You are right about the flaw in mine.N/T

[Euromutt]

12. Though not as expensive as a study that costs money but produces garbage

Emory University obviously has too much money if they can keep Arthur Kellermann on the payroll.

[spin]

11. Kick...

too late to recommend.

edited to add... too late