I am da one, da one you call, dont need no gun

This is an acceptable assumption because guns are mobile, potentially concealable items and the bullets they fire can pass through obstacles and travel long distances. We assumed that the resident population of Philadelphia risked being shot in an assault at any location and at any time of day or night. We considered trial, cohort, and matched cohort designs but for various reasons (ethical considerations, prohibitively long implementation time, limited generalizability, and so on.) these were not pursued. To determine this in the most generalizable way, we chose our target population to be residents of Philadelphia prompting the use of population-based control participants. We applied a caseвЂ“control study design to determine the association between being injured with a gun in an assault and an individual's possession of a gun at the time. We included both fatal and nonfatal outcomes and accounted for a variety of individual and situational confounders also measured at the time of assault.

3 With this in mind, we conducted a population-based caseвЂ“control study in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to investigate the relationship between being injured with a gun in an assault and an individual's possession of a gun at the time. However, the recent National Research Council committee also concluded that additional individual-level studies of the association between gun ownership and violence were the most important priority for the future. This led a recent National Research Council committee to conclude that, although the observed associations in these caseвЂ“control studies may be of interest, they do little to reveal the impact of guns on homicide or the utility of guns for self-defense. 9 These prior studies were not designed to determine the risk or protection that possession of a gun might create for an individual at the time of a shooting and have only considered fatal outcomes. Several caseвЂ“control studies have explored the relationship between homicide and having a gun in the home, 5, 6 purchasing a gun, 7, 8 or owning a gun. 1 Although scholars and the public agree that the roughly 100 000 shootings each year in the United States are a clear threat to health, uncertainty remains as to whether civilians armed with guns are, on average, protecting or endangering themselves from such shootings.

Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.ДЄmong a long list of issues facing the American public, guns are third only to gay marriage and abortion in terms of people who report that they are вЂњnot willing to listen to the other side.вЂќ In concert with this cultural rift, scholarly discussion over guns has been similarly contentious. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 ( P <. 05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 ( P <. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables. 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 investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

I am da one, da one you call, dont need no gun