Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ 

Study Suggests Gun Possession May Not Protect Against Assault

October 21, 2009 by  

Study suggests gun possession may not protect against assaultResearchers from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine have found that guns did not appear to protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault.

The study, which is scheduled to be published in November in the American Journal of Public Health, relied on the review of 677 randomly selected cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. The researchers found that 6 percent of victims in these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.

"This study should be the beginning of a better investment in gun injury research through various government and private agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control," says Charles C. Branas, associate professor of epidemiology at the school.

He adds that in the past such agencies have not been legally allowed to fund studies which would affect the passage of specific legislation intended to restrict access to firearms.

Similar studies, however, are unlikely to affect the mission of organizations which claim that access to arms is a constitutional right of every American.

Recently, the Second Amendment Foundation has announced it will be joining in a federal lawsuit to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which took effect on Oct. 1.

The act declares that any firearms made and retained in Montana are not subject to any federal authority under the power given to Congress in the U.S. Constitution to regulate commerce among states.
ADNFCR-1961-ID-19409715-ADNFCR

Filed Under: Conservative Politics, Liberty News
Personal Liberty News Desk

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Study Suggests Gun Possession May Not Protect Against Assault”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Oldman & prepared

    I don’t want to shoot to kill, but I will to stay alive. Twice in my life being prepared helped. Save all the study money, give it to the disabled veterans…

    • JeffH

      Oldman & prepared, one must shoot to kill when assaulted with a weapon to avoid the lawsuits by the criminals, and overzealous DA’s that would decide to prosecute you for protecting yourself. You can sleep better knowing you have saved more lives by removing the violent criminal who might have more lawful protection than yourself.

      • DaveH

        Unfortunately I think our Criminal Justice system has become a 3-ring circus that is more about employment for the Justice system than about punishing criminals. The Police benefit from criminals, the Lawyers benefit from criminals, and the Jailers benefit from criminals. Oh yeah, I forgot about the Media. Why would they want to put an end to crime? They are making a fortune from it.

    • JohnW

      I agree that I’d rather not have to, but would urge you to re-think shooting to wound. JeffH pointed out elsewhere that it’s the only option. Here’s the argument offered to me by a law enforcement professional (chief, actually):

      1) Any shooting will wind up in a judge/jury scenario. Judges and jury members have seen about 341 too many cowboy movies in which the good guy shoots the gun from the baddie’s hand – and they will ask “why didn’t you just shoot him in the leg?” or some other grossly uninformed query. Hexxx – at that stress level you’re lucky to have hit him at all.
      2) Judges and juries are comprised of emotional human beings, and they’re not always too pretty bright. Regardless of right, an emotional plea from the bad guy could sway proceedings in your disfavor.
      3) In any court situation there are two stories – defendant’s and accuser’s. You obviously want for yours to be the ONLY story.

      Lesson -
      Don’t shoot unless it’s a necessity.
      If you must shoot, shoot to kill.
      If you don’t kill, shoot again.

  • DaveH

    The only political party that respects the freedoms that our founders worked to establish:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh2a2Uqsebk&NR=1

  • ONTIME

    Why in hell was a gun study put into the health journal? I know why, because these slime balls are trying real hard to tie guns and health together. Maybe they think guns aren’t good to eat or don’t contain enough calcium but they do contain lead and that will ward of the thief or clod that threatens your safety, trust me on this. You take care of your legal gun and it will take care of the criminal if they can’t take a hint.

  • Gerald Spencer

    What percentage of the 6% were shot while committing a felony, were making a drug transaction, and/or were not licensed to carry a handgun. The majority of the 6% probably had criminal histories.

    • Gerald Spencer

      What percentage of the 6% were shot by the police during an arrest?

      What percentage of the 6% were shot by armed citizens while attempting to burglarize, car-jack, rape, rob or otherwise trying to victimize an innocent armed citizen?

      What percentage of the 6% were retarded, insane, and/or had mental health issues.

      What percentage of the 6% were shot were licensed to carry citizens?

      This study is of very little scientific value, unless it is un-biased and objective.

      The US government should demand return of the money until the study has scientific value.

  • Kathie

    Shame on you for publishing this. Doesn’t sound like personal liberty is on the mind of those who completed this study. Oh, I see…it’s public welfare, not personal liberty. I get it! With public welfare in mind, I personally think we should get rid of all motorized vehicles. How many people die in car wrecks every year? Oh, and what about those nasty ladders? I think I read that falls are one of the leading causes of death in this country. And then there is the issue of diet. Do you know how many people die each year because their eating habits? Guess we’d better ban everything but fruits and vegetables and prosecute anyone who sells any sort of packaged food. Oh yes, has anyone seen the statistics about people who die in hospitals each year because of inappropriate drug dosages and physicians’ mistakes? Better get rid of those things too! I am sure the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine research team is all over that topic. Yeah, right…..

    • American Citizen

      How many people die of AIDS? We should also get rid of sex. That’ll teach those liberals.

    • DaveH

      Kathie,
      Personal Liberty is just trying to make us aware of the attacks on our freedom. And it’s a good thing. If we didn’t have Foxnews, Personal Liberty, and other conservative sources revealing what the Liberals are trying to get away with, then the Liberals would surely succeed.

      • libertytrain

        Nicely said by DaveH.

      • JeffH

        Once again, you hit the nail on the head. At first I thought it a rather odd post, but after reading it over again, the message of the post is very clear.
        Thanks Personal Liberty News Desk and Personal Liberty Digest once again.

  • Keith E.

    This all goes to show why we are in the situation we’re in. Libs always enjoy using someone else’s dollars to provide a study skewed to their particular point of view. The money continues to be available to them. Whenever we are smart enough to discontinue their funding, this nonsense will stop…. they’ll be much less likely to reach into their own pockets for the cash to propagate a devious ideology…. right now it’s a free ride for them. Let’s quit enabling them… “Congress do you hear us?”

  • Dennis

    HA!

  • Tim Marshall

    This is exactly the kind of liberal funded hypocrisy BS that will assist in getting people really killed. I suppose these same liberal biased idiots will be against our military and law enforcement bearing arms next as they march in lockstep with their UN anti firearms, Brady Lobbyist, and Obama Administration cronies. I am a disabled veteran and I have long carried legal permitted concealed firearms which have saved both mine and others bacon on numerous occasions. The only persons dumber than the agenda oriented publishers of this BS are the poor Darwinian nitwits that believe such sources. I suggest they look at the real statistics of the herded sheep in Europe, Australia and else where that surrendered their rights to bear arms and see how their real statistics in the wake of such actions effected the disarmed individuals against the armed criminals that just love such ranting that promote their next supply of easy victims. – Live Free or Die!

    • DaveH

      Tim,
      I don’t think Socialists are against guns as long as they are in the hands of the leaders they support. I also don’t think they would have any problem with violence against conservatives. History has shown us how Socialists deal with their opposition.

      • JeffH

        DaveH, how can you make such a bold statement about our current government, as that is how it was intended! (tongue in cheek)
        My ole pappy used to tell me TRUST IS A MUST OR YOUR GAME IS A BUST!
        I don’t trust this Soros run administration or his puppets! I think I agree with you.

  • George

    What’s the % of liberals who were shot?

    • DaveH

      Probably 0% because the criminals felt sorry for them.

    • JeffH

      More likely 100%, as the liberals probably started with their usual phyco-babble of “you poor misguided sole” or “did you have a lousy upbringing” or “I understand your drug addiction, maybe I can help you” or ” I don’t think you are a bad person”. Then it would have been a mercy killing! LOL!

      • DaveH

        LOL.

  • Sam

    I am leery of any research done by someone with a result in mind prior to the conducting of selective persons portrayed as random. Certainly the use of criminals in such a survey is not to be considered as valid. These people have enemies that know they are carrying a gun and seek to overcome this advantage through stealth and surprise. A honest citizen who is armed for his protection is not often the target of the stealthy criminal but the robber or assaulter who is likely not anticipating an armed adversery. In fact the anticipation may be on the part of the honest gun carrier. Research implies blind studies and random selection without a wished for outcome. This study fails the definition of a study and is a waste of $600,000 of hard earned tax money.

  • David Ferrera

    If only 6% of gunshot victims had guns then it follows that 94% of gunshot victims DID NOT have guns, thereby making the unarmed majority vulnerable to criminal predators.

    • DaveH

      David,
      It’s estimated that over 30% of the citizens in the US own guns.

      • JeffH

        March 27, 2008
        Public Believes Americans Have Right to Own GunsNearly three in four say Second Amendment guarantees this right

        A solid majority of the U.S. public, 73%, believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns. Twenty percent believe the amendment only guarantees the rights of state militia members to own guns.

      • DaveH

        Jeff,
        The Liberals wore out the militia misinformation, so now they are trying to promote the idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Federal government. They will twist and turn every which way to justify banning guns. If indeed the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government, why did the founders even put it in the Bill of Rights? Since the Federal Government is only given certain powers in the Constitution, and controlling guns was not one of the powers, it would have been redundant to create the 2nd Amendment. Oh wait, maybe our forefathers knew that the Liberals would interpret the commerce clause to allow the Feds to do whatever they damn well pleased. Sure.

        Another point I’d like to make is this. How come the Liberals don’t say the right to free speech only applies to the Feds? How come they don’t say the search and seizure protections apply only to the Feds?

        Our founders tried really hard to protect us from power-seekers, but unfortunately the only real protection must come from the citizens and many of them have been successfully brainwashed by the Liberal MSM.

        It may be too late already to turn around. Too many pigs at the trough.

      • JeffH

        DaveH, I truly believe that right will prevail over wrong in time. It may come down to a power struggle between the people, meaning us, and the politicos that mis-govern this country. Should it come to another “revolution”, god forbid, then we must count on the strength of the will of the people. My hope is that Obamas agenda will be curtailed by the moderate conservative Democrats lack of support. I think we are starting to see traces of that happening. I also hope that at some point, we can gain the legal ground to stop this damnation before it is too late.

      • JohnW

        I add an “AMEN” to JeffH’s comments. No one can afford to believe that evil will conquer or that it’s too late. Besides, the remarks appearing in this discussion reveal a lot of like-minded people who’ve never heard of one another. We’re just coming out of the woodwork to fumigate the place.

  • CJ

    The survey implies that having a gun will give an owner an “impervious shield of defense” which keeps them from being a victim. WRONG! I’m tired of surveys, government (fed and state) and the media dictating to us, as if we are required to live as victims and not allowed to defend ourselves! And like Byron says, we need to be prepared, especially mentally, to do WHATEVER is necessary to stop the aggressors, including killing them if necessary. We don’t choose the conflict, it chooses us, and we have to be willing to go ALL THE WAY to stop it without feeling guilty afterward. Government has conditioned us into accepting this “victim” status. We have to resist it and not feel quilty for doing what we have to when the unthinkable happens. You may be victimized, but you shouldn’t feel guilt from it!!

  • American Citizen

    Is there anything in this study that gives the percentage of people whose gun protected them during an assault? The question has to work both ways. 6% doesn’t sound like a lot of people. Surveys are only as good as the questions asked and the people who are questioned. I don’t believe polls or surveys as the number of people in them is usually too small and in too concentrated an area to be believable.

  • John Hull

    The NIH has been trying for years to get guns declared a health issue, and ultimately ban private gun ownership. This is just another lame attempt masquerading as science toward that goal.

    Kleck and others have long since proven that mere possession of a gun deters criminals to the tune of 2.5 million confrontations a year, using the government’s own figures. Most of those confrontations don’t even require shots being fired. The NRA publishes press reported cases of guns protecting people and property every month in its various publications, and has done for decades.

    This study is so much BS and anybody with half a brain knows it.

    • DaveH

      Unless their brain is the subject of intense propaganda received from our public schools at an early age.

  • Bob

    The conclusion of the gun study is bogus, biased and nonsense. I live in Florida. This is not the state to visit if crime against a “typical” citizen is on your agenda!

  • jeSSica

    OK let me get this straight:
    Of 100 people who were shot 6 had guns.
    or is it:
    Of 100 people who owned guns only 6 were shot.
    or is it:
    Of all the people who didn’t have guns all of them were shot.
    I’m CONfused

  • Anti-Left

    Now that’s credible research. Rahm’s brother the head of this school?
    Get real

  • Byron Davis

    It’s not the gun that protects people. It is the gun and the knowledge, education and preparation to use it. People that think getting a gun and getting their license is all it takes. It takes mental preparation, hand steadiness, focus and practice. Even then nobody knows whether or not they are ready to defend themselves. All a person can do is focus, practice and find something that is comfortable and rely on avoiding certain situations. If a certain situation does arise. Then the Boy Scout motto is the best method… “BE PREPARED”

    • JeffH

      Well said. Gun control is hitting what you aim at!

    • JohnW

      Truer words were never spoken. Simply having a gun(s) in some drawer is not preparedness – it’s a recipe for disaster. Good training and many hours of practice are basic necessities – including that required to stay in tune as bodies and reflexes change. Personally, I love the racket and the recoil and the precision and the ever-smaller patterns – practice is entertainment over a lifetime.

      Intelligent practice, on the other hand, is not sufficiently stressed, in my opinion. In an emergency, there may be little chance of striking a traditional firing pose, so it helps to do oddball angles and stances so as to learn how to hit a target in less-than-ideal circumstances. It’s not about Tex and GI Joe and cojones, it’s about basic competence.

      The most difficult, in my opinion, is the mental preparedness. It’s one thing to talk tough, and entirely another to be prepared to fire without hesitation, regardless of outcome. Those who haven’t the stomach should sell their arms before they hurt themselves. It IS possible to mentally rehearse some pretty nasty things to the point of creating preparedness – if the simple act of no longer being repulsed may be characterized as being contributory to being prepared.

      During WWII, a Japanese general swore that he would never invade the U.S. because “there is a gun behind every blade of grass.” True story. Well, as I see it, if anyone from within or without threatens my person or my family, I’m the old guy with the grass stains….

      An aside:
      This is my first visit to this discussion, and I must say that I feel as though I’m in good company. Glad you’re all out there. Hope we don’t need to meet.

      • libertytrain

        JohnW – I enjoyed the read – thanks.

      • JohnW

        Oooops – sorry Libertytrain – I missed acknowledging your cordial encouragement. Thank you.

      • JeffH

        Welcome aboard JohnW. I have been a wingshooter for over 45 years and pulled off a shot with me 22LR Henry last Saturday that I thought only exhibition shooters could do. While out hunting Grey Squirrels I was challenged to shoot a Crow out of the air. Having “snap” shot many quail, I “snap” shot a Crow from overhead. I was surprised, but it was my shooting instincts that prevailed. I doubt I could do it again.

      • JohnW

        Thanks, Jeff. You and Spiff have both cordially responded, and taken the edge off walking through a new doorway, so to speak.

        That was some shot! Luck or no luck, you couldn’t have done it without good natural “point” – bet you’ve fired that Henry more than a few times. In any event, congratulations/

  • Blaine Nay

    The study was based on data carefully selected to dramatically skew the results toward a perceived need for gun control and away from truth. In concert with other anti-gun studies, this study carefully cherry-picked the study and control samples, rejecting majority populations that contradict their goal of denigrating guns and gun owners. When a study population consists of gang-bangers, at this one did , the results are very predictable. But, the study infers that all gun owners have the same risk of violent injury as do the criminals in the study. News reporters and editors around the world gleefully regurgitated everything the “researchers” said in their press release word-for-word as if it were entirely truthful without taking even a second to read the study, examine its egregious flaws, and question its methods. This parrot-style reporting is another example of the profoundly lazy, biased, and dangerous reporting in today’s news media. The news media’s repetition of this article (anti-gun propaganda) would make any legitimate researcher, statistician, news reporter, or editor blush with shame. Instead of recycling propaganda as news simply because it feels good, I expect news reporters and editors to do thorough research before going to press.

  • Dennis Barker

    I’m sure our government will do all it can to convence the public that guns are bad. I have the right to protect me and my family against attack. Just like any situation, I may win or I may loss. But without an equal weapon, I don’t even stand a chance. An unarmed person is automatically a victim. You can do any study and with the selection of partisipants and situations, you can make the results whatever you want. More BS!

    • James

      Dennis B, any American who believes the Second Amendment is the source of his right to bear arms, has unwittingly already placed his right under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Welcome to the real world.

  • Rick

    Perhaps the study should include those people who WERE NOT shot because they were armed. I can do a study to show you what ever aswer you want.

    • DaveH

      Those stats would be very difficult to compile because nobody in their right mind, after successfully scaring off an attacker with a gun, is going to report the incident to the police. If they do they can count on being a victim twice.

    • Sharon Carter

      Right on! No different than those that count the votes, control the election.

    • American Citizen

      If 6% of those carrying a gun were shot, then 94% of those carrying a gun were not. If all incidents are not reported, then it’s impossible to say what the numbers really are.

      • Lisa G

        This is where academia and the media to not mix well. While the study may have met academic requirements (I can’t say for a fact that it did or did not), the media, in its complete lack of educational background simply prints the “sound bites” and does not explain to the ever ignorant-by-choice public the parameters of the study and that the results are confined to said parameters. It is a disgrace for the media to perpetuate such nonsense. Shame, Shame, Shame

  • Klaus J Christoph

    What is a School of medicine doing conducting a study like that? Too many of these anti-gun liberals try to run our lives. This is just another veiled attempt to make something like this ‘study’ sound legitimate. The NRA is much more qualified to conduct a real study of something like this.

    • Marauder

      All the gun-grabbing activity starts to make sense when one realizes that the dimlibs are striving to disarm us for a globalist takeover ushered in by the UN. That also lifts the veil on the mystery of the gargantuan spending on bailouts and stimuli, as well as the takeover by the fed of the entire health care segment of our economy: Same goal; chaos leads to government control.
      These DUI (Damned Utopian Idiots) mean business: They want ultimate power and control, but can’t achieve it fairly, so they must resort to these kinds of methods. That’s why it doesn’t do any good to argue logic with these dimlib fools.

      • Joe Cool

        They want my guns, they can take them. Over my dead body!

  • http://personalliberty Patricia Keith

    Artical states “Similar studies, however, are unlikely to affect the mission of organizations which claim that access to arms is a constitutional right of every American.” “…access to arms IS a constitutional right of every American.” That isn’t just a claim, that is a Fact.

    • James

      Patricia, our right to bear arms is not a constitutional right, it’s an inherent and inalienable right. That is, the right is not dependent on the Second Amendment for its existence. The amendment’s “shall not be infringed” is simply a restriction the Founders placed upon the national government. Many Supreme Court decisions, including the recent Heller decison, have held that the amendment’s restriction applies exclusively to the national government.

      • JeffH

        James, for god sakes, stop with the “legal mumbo jumbo”! I think most people understand the “core meaning” of the Second Amendment.
        Notice that “guarantees” is used in it’s ruling of DC vs Heller

        A link from SAF (Seond Amendement Foundation)
        http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=gunrights_faq#1

        . Is gun ownership a “civil right?”

        World Net, from Princeton University, defines a “Civil Right” as a right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of congress including the right to legal, social and economic equality. This makes gun ownership as much of a civil right as freedom of speech, religion and freedom of the press.

        1a. Supreme Court affirms Second Amendment as a fundamental civil right (District of Columbia v Heller)

        The Heller case challenged several laws in Washington DC that constituted a complete ban on the Second Amendment rights for D.C. residents with no exception given for self-defense. In the Heller case, the Supreme court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental individual right to have functional firearms in the home that are commonly owned without being connected to any service of the state or military organization. The Supreme Court also ruled that the Second Amendment is a fundamental part of the bill of rights, which guarantees citizen’s individual rights. Lastly, In this 5 to 4 decision with Associate Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia writing for the majority, The Supreme Court affirmed that Washington DC gun laws violated the Second Amendment Civil Rights of DC residents and to positively restore those rights.

      • James

        JeffH, When the Heller Court said the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the right to bear arms, it was referring to citizens in the District of Columbia, who are under federal jurisdiction. Heller began with: “We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of a usable handgun in the home violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution.”
        The Court said of the amendment: “We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a ‘pre-existing’ right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”
        The Court quoted U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875) where it “held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right ‘is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.’ States, we said, were free to restrict or protect the right under their police powers.”
        The Heller Court, in footnote 23, reaffirmed this. The Court also stated: “We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses our adoption of the original understanding of the Second Amendment. It should be unsurprising that such a significant matter has been for so long judicially unresolved.”

      • JeffH

        It will all be sorted out with McDonald vs Chicago which means the lawyer and legal eagles will have to honor the Second Amendments protection or “guarantee” if you will.

        The DC vs Heller, “protects” is as good as a guarantee. The only thing related to a non-guarantee is that the peoples “protected” rights will always be attacked by those that want to violate the Second Amendment.
        Last year, the Supreme Court struck down a similar Washington, D.C. ordinance banning handguns. “The Second Amendment,” it found, “protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” But Chicago insisted on keeping its law.

      • James

        JeffH, you are quoting Heller Court dicta that, out of context, agrees with your beliefs. The Court held: “In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. …The District must permit him [Mr. Heller] to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”
        The Heller decision has no other effect than that. You are ignoring what the Supreme Court held in U.S. v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas, which the Heller Court reaffirmed.
        Earlier this year, the 9th Cir. Ct. of Appeals (in Nordyke v. King) held that the Second Amendment can’t be “directly incorporated” into a state because of those precedents.
        In McDonald v. Chicago, the 7th Cir. Ct. of Appeals held that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments. The Illinois Constitution, Article I, Section 22 reads: “Subject only to the police power , the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
        That is what protects and guarantees the right of citizens in Illinois – not the Second Amendment.

      • James

        JeffH, I would just add that the Chicago ordinance is in violation of the Illinois Constitution, and Mr. McDonald’s inalienable right. He should have filed his suit in an Illinois State court, and so-claimed.

    • DaveH
  • harold hunter

    I belive the NRA should do a study on some of the medications these QUACKS dispenese and come up with conclusions that would make putting leeches on people for treatment sound like good practice. The medical field should tend the sick and leave the well alone. After all the doctors and inbred medical schools are by and large a disaster for whats wrong with health care.

    • DaveH

      Right on Harold.
      From following website:
      http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2008/11/13/death-by-hospital-is-it-avoidable-part-two-of-a-series/
      “An additional 103,000 Americans die because they have contracted avoidable, drug resistant hospital infections”.

      From Wikipedia:
      “The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with firearms used in 16,907 suicides in the United States during 2004″.

      So the total deaths by hospitals exceeds the total deaths by guns by several times even when suicides are included. Could it be that the CDC’s time would be better spent addressing the hospital problem?

      • libertytrain

        Re DaveH’s comment: “An additional 103,000 Americans die because they have contracted avoidable, drug resistant hospital infections”.

        From Wikipedia:
        “The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with firearms used in 16,907 suicides in the United States during 2004″.

        “So the total deaths by hospitals exceeds the total deaths by guns by several times even when suicides are included. Could it be that the CDC’s time would be better spent addressing the hospital problem?”

        Yes – it would be nice – our hospitals are so dirty they are killing us – and I’m talking the “finest” hospitals in the Country – but that problem is kind of hush-hush – My mom was killed this way by a cutting-edge, fine hospital. And it is unbelievable that it is so acceptable to kill their patients this way.

      • DaveH

        That may be symptomatic of the decline of our entire country. It is very obvious to me that if we continue with our wasteful government spending we are going to become a third-world country.

    • James

      Harold H, My grandfather, back in the early 1930s, had a cancerous infection on his neck. A doctor placed fly larva in the cavity, fly larva eat only dead tissue. The larva completely cleaned the wound and my grandfather lived a long and prosperous life.

      • Thurman Marcum

        James,

        That was surgical flies.It is now used in Europe and England.I could never understand why we couldn’t used this method in the United States.Surgical flies have been used since the mid 1800s.

      • JustaPatriot38

        We can’t use the flies here because the FDA won’t approve anything that is ‘natural’ since it can’t be patented so the pharmaceutical interests can make and sell them at very inflated prices. FDA says ‘only patent medicine can cure diseases’ and most of us know that in the medical world the patent medicines only treat symptoms, not the underlying causes, and mostly just trade one set of symptoms for another. Basically the FDA is not our friend in many ways.

  • jerry r. bolton

    Well,how much did that silly survey cost. It will work if a thief or whatever trys to come in my house. Survey says: You’re dead.

    • Blaine Nay

      The study cost over $600,000 — paid for by the taxpayer though the National Institutes for Health (NIH). The study was carefully crafted to skew the results toward an anti-gun bias. When the study group is composed primarily of criminals, the results are predictable. To infer that all gun owners are at the same risk of violence as a bunch of criminals is irresponsible. The researchers should publish a retraction and apology. The NIH employees who funded this should be fired. The members of the media (including http://www.personalliberty.com) who published this garbage without actually reading the study should be ashamed. Regurgitating a press release, as they did, as if it were honest truth is the epitome of lazy journalism.

      • Ellian

        ….duh!

      • Valverde

        No mention was made of any kind of training, either. These dummies all assume that guns have a life of their own, that they will somehow, of their own power, jump up and start shooting. Give me a break. I’ve been a gun owner for all of my life. I know which situations to watch for when I am out with my family and I am competent to meet a situation when it should arise. I bet I’m not as likely to be shot as some criminal who crosses my path with mayhem in mind.

    • Disgusted

      Just another attempt by this administration to take our gun rights away from us. This study was funded with our tax money by the government with a President that stated during his campaign that he would “fundamentally change the United States”. This same President practiced constitutional law and is now fundamentally going to change our country by changing our constitution. If we don’t do something about it we are going to be sorry.

      Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. If we started taking an eye for an eye in this country maybe criminals would see serious consequences to their actions instead of a stint at club fit with free healthcare and education. The problem is much deeper than the “GUNS”.

    • April

      WOW! They’re that desparate.

    • RM

      The Illoustrous state of california has there department of health calling citizens with the premise of asking questions for a survey on health issues and some of the questions were about firearms. They called me and ask me to take the survey which I did until he started asking questions on firearms and mental health I ask him what this had to do with health issues and he said this was part of the survey and I replied the survey and questions are over I’m not for any gun control measures Period nor any anti-gun bs. . I told him to call pelosi she has all the answers.Jerry you are correct my survey says the same YOUR DEAD. Lets all us Gun Owners stand together and get rid of these socialist liberals that are ruining this country.

    • JeffH

      This survey has no relavance whatsoever in determining anything.
      It was a total waste of money that could have been spent wisley in a more needful way.
      I don’t say this because I am for pro-gun rights, but out 677 people in Philadelphia polled, less than 41 people carried a gun? Those figures just jump out at you, don’t they?

blog comments powered by Disqus

All Categories

Bottom