heh, heh, he, to the NRA

From American Public Health Association (quick Rs, pull their finding)

Abstract:

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.

Read More

In other words, I’m all right Jack, I have a gun. To which the dispassionate liberal would respond, good luck with that. Maybe we’ll make you pay for you own emergency room treatment (not covered under insurance policies) for those wounded when in possession of a gun.

We cannot fix you being stupid, but we can make it expensive.

Nicely done and a good example of the scientific method.

A p<0.05 is a significance test. It means the population injured when carrying a gun is measurably more likely to get injured than 95% of population analyzed.

When do the Rs plan to pull their funding and also make the scientific method illegal?