Saturday, October 10, 2009
Fantastic stupidity
From the latest New Superstitionist:
First and most obvious, the study apparently didn't bother to ask if the victims were gang members. Turf wars among gangs account for a large part of gun violence in places like Philly. The "socioeconomic status of the neighborhood" is not a proxy for gang membership, because lots of unfortunate non-gangsters are stuck in gang-owned neighborhoods, and those non-gangsters are much less likely to be carrying.
Second and most fantastic, "Branas speculates that guns may give a sense of empowerment that ... encourages them to visit dangerous neighbourhoods."
Has Branas ever known an actual human being? Why in the holy hell would anyone visit a dangerous neighborhood with a gun unless he specifically intended to commit a crime? "Oh, I'm bored this afternoon. Ho hum. Think I'll go have a cup of coffee in the ghetto just to see if their coffee is better than the coffee in my upscale gated suburb. And might as well bring along the old trusty AK-47, see if there's a gun repair shop in the ghetto where I can get it tuned up and lubricated." Is this what Branas imagines? ¶ 9:44 AM
People who carry guns are far more likely to get shot than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia has found. ... Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for further potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
Overall, people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. ...
While people who think they are at risk of getting shot may also be more likely to carry firearms, Branas speculates that guns may give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact, or encourages them to visit dangerous neighbourhoods.
First and most obvious, the study apparently didn't bother to ask if the victims were gang members. Turf wars among gangs account for a large part of gun violence in places like Philly. The "socioeconomic status of the neighborhood" is not a proxy for gang membership, because lots of unfortunate non-gangsters are stuck in gang-owned neighborhoods, and those non-gangsters are much less likely to be carrying.
Second and most fantastic, "Branas speculates that guns may give a sense of empowerment that ... encourages them to visit dangerous neighbourhoods."
Has Branas ever known an actual human being? Why in the holy hell would anyone visit a dangerous neighborhood with a gun unless he specifically intended to commit a crime? "Oh, I'm bored this afternoon. Ho hum. Think I'll go have a cup of coffee in the ghetto just to see if their coffee is better than the coffee in my upscale gated suburb. And might as well bring along the old trusty AK-47, see if there's a gun repair shop in the ghetto where I can get it tuned up and lubricated." Is this what Branas imagines? ¶ 9:44 AM
