Today, 12:20 AM #125
JohnKSa
Staff
Join Date: February 11, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 15,661
The problem is that you provided another source, earlier in the thread, on page 12. (
http://www.ade.az.gov/sa/msp/RCT.pdf)
It points out that even when a true random controlled trial can't be carried out, it is possible to do studies such as "comparison group" studies. Such studies are capable of, per the source you provided, of "producing valuable knowledge, and may be a good alternative" to more controlled trials. They also, per the same source, generally provide overall results that are accurate, and only "in some instances" produce "erroneous overall conclusions".
Basically, what that source, that you provided earlier says, is what you have proven you believe by quoting portions of the studies in support of your position. They provide valuable knowledge and can be a good alternative to more rigidly controlled testing, producing overall results that are generally accurate and only in some instances erroneous.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
Check out Black Bear Flashlights.
Dear JohnSKa,
I am only trying to give another view from my professional perspective of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of medical studies for about 30 years now. Yes, there are several types of research study methods. In the prior links, some of the sites went into the various types of studies including retrospective case series, randomized and controlled trials and also observational studies with case controls.
All of these studies are still retrospective case series without any controls. The only study that they try to promote as a case control study is Tom Smith's gun study where he looked at outcomes where people with guns shot and people with guns did not shoot. He is trying to make the case that the encounters were the same, but not shooting had the same outcome as shooting.
That is a bit of a stretch in my mind asserting and assuming that the encounters were essentially the same in both cohorts. It is more likely that the cases where people with guns did not shoot were not in as immediate danger as in the cases where they did shoot. I suspect he is in essence comparing apples to oranges. That is what he alleges anyway.
In any case, the DLP study is important because it does not support that hypothesis. It is contradictory evidence against the pepper spray is better than guns hypothesis. And yes, once again, it cannot by itself answer that same question either.
You could assemble an observational controlled trial without randomization and conduct a case controlled prospective study based on people's preference for guns vs pepper spray. There are people that spend a great deal of time in the boonies and only carry pepper spray. You could likewise assemble a group of folks that only carry guns.
However, it is likely that the behavior of the people in these two groups would be substantially different in that those that carry guns would be more likely to engage in hunting activities which is one of the most dangerous activities greatly increasing the risk of bear attack. Think about it, folks hiding, staying quiet and avoiding being upwind from critters aborts the usual tips to the bear that people are nearby. This dramatically increases the risk of surprise encounters which are the most dangerous of all.
Even this hypothetical study design would have many built in biases that would likely render the data inaccurate as well.
We are stuck with the current data as the best available, yet within these studies, is conflicting evidence with truly no way to settle the question. Since both methods have definite strengths and weaknesses, the only answer is to carry both, but further to truly understand where one has weaknesses and the other has strengths.
While none of these studies can give conclusive proof, common sense would dictate that there are conditions where you should avoid one and use the other. Determining that comes from understanding the details of the researchers finding as well as combining that with experience and personal knowledge.
As I have stated before, these studies are valuable, but ultimately not designed to answer all of the questions. Carry both and think through different scenarios ahead of time just as we do with CCW. Training and practice and learning all you can is all that we can do. Avoidance techniques and bring someone to enjoy the experience with you are probably much more important than pepper spray or guns.
JohnSKa, I hope that this is helpful. It is a complex issue especially for folks that may not be familiar with different study designs. Once again, I am just trying to give a different perspective from my professional background of reading and studying and applying medical research studies to my own career. The bear researchers use the same type of methods in their research as well.
Take care. We will be off canoeing again today. After a month of unusual thunder storms, we are finally getting "normal" summer Idaho weather for the next few days anyway.
God bless,
Alaska444
