Reply #235: The correlation is a one-way correlation.

[GreenStormCloud]

You don't know how many people who were carrying or had a gun close at hand and were not shot. The best that you can say is that in that study the people who were shot were 4.5X more likely to have a gun available. You can't reverse the correlation. Logic doesn't allow it. You can't say that having a gun makes you 4.5X times more likely to be shot.

You are merely speculating on why there is no LTCF data. I have a different speculation. There is no LTCF data because probably no LTCF people were shot. People who are licensed to carry concealed have a strongly different set of behaviors than the vast majority of the shooting victims in the study. We are more educated, have clean police records, are older (Most of us are 45+), are more affluent, don't drink to excess or use drugs, and we strongly try to avoid trouble. We definitely don't engage in duels. Our behaviors and demographics are the opposite of the group that was studied, therefore I don't believe that the results of the study have any relevance to me. If I go into the high-crime area of a major city at night then they might have relevance.

Why is does the report hide self-defense shootings under the label "undetermined intent"? To me that is dishonest.

BTW - I am NOT anti-science. My college major was math (two courses in prob/stat) with a minor in physics. Over the past 40 years I have subscribed to several science magazines, such as Discover, Scientific American, Science News, and others. You would do well to hold off on your accusations and condescension.