Yes, Guns Are Disruptive to the Urban Societal Fabric

Recently, I argued that guns simply don’t work in cities: they are harmful to its culture as well as a physical threat. So this study from Philadelphia seems relevant (boldface mine):

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.

That’s right: having a gun was more dangerous for the victim.

Action movie fantasies aside, guns just don’t work in cities.

This entry was posted in BANG! BANG!. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Yes, Guns Are Disruptive to the Urban Societal Fabric

  1. Grung_e_Gene says:

    Are you seriously trying to use a study with data to convince the Gun Nuts?

  2. I don’t think your conclusions are justified. Perhaps the data simply shows that in high crime urban settings, more people carry guns to protect themselves because it is a high crime area, where one would expect to see higher gun-related injuries.

    You keep posting studies which show that people who own guns are a higher risk to be injured by them. OF COURSE they are! So what? The question is how much extra risk does that impose on responsible gun owners.

    And the statistics show that a very miniscule percentage of guns are involved in injuries. And that a very miniscule percentage of gun owners are injured by their guns.

    The problem is not guns, it is the relatively tiny numbers of yahoos who use guns irresponsibly. As in illegally. As in gang and drug related crime. These are the people who are generating all the morbidity and mortality statistics you consistently and mistakenly ascribe to the common man.

    You want to see a real decrease in gun-related injuries and deaths? Legalize drugs. Al Capone et al used to have his men strafing the streets with tommy guns. Then prohibition ended, and so did the strafing runs.

    You want to impress me with statistics? Then tell me how much of our gun violence should be attributed to gang and drug-related activities.

    • Grung_e_Gene says:

      Oh Roger, where do you think the criminals get their guns from? “Straw purchases” are a tiny minority of illegal weapons procurement, does that mean we should scrap the law? Guns are one of the top 3 items stolen from homes because “responsible” gun owners can’t secure their massive stockpiles of hardware. Gun Owners need to prove twice yearly they have positive control of the weaponry.

      Contrary to your beliefs, ownership of a gun in the home massively increases the chances you or a family member will be shot by *that* gun.

      30,000 Americans die every year from guns. Obviously, the guns are the problem. We are awash in weapons, we are not safer.

      The NRA and insane gun huggers are being used by the firearms industry to flood this country with weapons. It’s time we rolled back George Bush’s blanket immunity the industry enjoys. Make Gun Manufacturers, Sellers and Owners potentially liable for death and injuries from their product. Maybe then Gun Makers will police the flow of their product.

      • Repeating the same disjointed statistics at me as if they are all conjoined logically is not helpful.

        As I said, of course (!) having a gun in the house increases the likelihood that someone in the family will be injured by that gun – but my reply is “So What?” There are between 300 million and 600 million guns in the homes of Americans – how many of them are involved in violence in the households they are kept? Almost none of them. How does this relate to households with swimming pools? I think you will find that swimming pools are very dangerous to their owners as well.

        You quote 30,000 people a year being killed by guns. How many of those deaths are gang and drug related? Are guns in the hands of responsible gun owners the problem, or are a relatively very small number of gang bangers and dope dealers causing the vast majority of gun-related carnage in this country? And are they likely to do less of what they are doing even if you pass every gun law you can imagine in a wet dream?

        That you see a conspiracy between gun manufacturers, the NRA, and the millions of people who actually buy and own firearms is as paranoid a view as the worst propaganda spewed from the NRA.

        • Grung_e_Gene says:

          Those Gun Lovers always fall back on gangs and drug-related. No one is saying that isn’t a major part of the problem! But, Right-Wing Gun Nuts repeatedly state the gun violence is only a “black on blacks” problem. Senator Chuck Grassley, Ann Coulter, Gleen Reynolds, Bob Owens, et al.

          I see no conspiracy. You are projecting your paranoia. The NRA simply does not represent Real Americans who want 100% background checks, curbs on mags/clips and other sensible legislation which may aid in reducing the massive carnage the Firearms Industry is profiting off of. If you can’t see that the massive influx of guns is driving a death spiral than we the people are in real trouble.

          • You see no conspiracy?? Then explain your own words:

            “The NRA and insane gun huggers are being used by the firearms industry to flood this country with weapons. “

            • Grung_e_Gene says:

              How obtuse are you? Wayne LaPierre and Gun Makers don’t give a shit about safety but only care about selling weapons. No conspriacy. But, you enjoy your phanthoms.

  3. george.w says:

    I grew up in a home full of guns. My dad used to say; “You are responsible for everything a bullet does until it comes to a complete stop.” Now I would expand that to say you share responsibility for whatever someone else does with your gun after they steal it. Some percentage could be worked out, and it would be much waived if the gun was properly locked up. Imagine suburban homeowners having to show up in court because their unsecured gun was used in a crime.

    There is no equivalence between guns and swimming pools, cars, blenders, pillows, etc. Those objects have other, primary uses.

    • There is no equivalence between guns and swimming pools, cars, blenders, pillows, etc. Those objects have other, primary uses.

      So what? The primary use of a pistol is self-defense, not self-infliction of injury, which is what the OP’s use of statistics was purporting to show. A swimming pool’s primary use is swimming. But they kill lots of small children when the pool’s owners forget to lock them up. Just like guns.

Comments are closed.