Fun fact. People who carry guns are most likely to be gunned down.
The study is flawed 677 people isnt enough people for an accurate cohort, besides that only using one location is going to produce biased results ( if i wanted to argue something ridiculous as say banning knives i would just argue use England as an example and statistics from a area with high rates of stabbing London maybe). Also the study did not mention the details of the control group, was it the total pop. of the city of Philadelphia, the state of Pennsylvania, 677 people who dont carry guns involved in crimes, 677 people who dont carry who weren’t involved in crimes. And just who where the 677 people where they handpicked cases meant to prove the results researchers wanted, random people, and what end of the assault where they on.
The article also mentions the term gun assault which is a non-existent legal classification so im left to wonder what they mean by that.
To many unknowns and flawed methods in the article for it to be legit.[/quote]
From a logical point of view, it does make sense. If you are armed, you are most likely to get in a gun fight, thus more likely to get shot.
From a logical point of view it makes no sense. If you are the TYPE to find yourself in a gun fight to begin with, you are more likely to get shot regardless of whether or not you have a gun. This is all based on environment, not whether or not you carry a gun. Your logic is actually completely backwards. IF you are carrying a gun, you are less likely to die in a gun fight. Without a gun, you have no chance, with a gun it’s 50/50. I fail to see how actually carrying a gun makes you more likely to use it in a fight with someone who also has one.