Fewer gun deaths in states with most gun laws, study finds

[wakproductions]

Fewer gun deaths in states with most gun laws, study finds - Vitals

 

[Brian 45]

Those with the strongest guns laws have the highest murder rates, Chicago, Washington DC etc. Wish the government would read and heed!

 

[Black Cloud]

Any numbers can be fudged to show any type of results. Like the article says, "I give you Chicago..."

 

[Lonestar6]

How to lie with statistics....

 

[TopDog]

Total BS and lies from the Liberal News Monster and the left. Nothing new, just more of the same.

 

[wakproductions]

Funny how the makers of this study do not provide sources or explain how the data was compiled. I betcha they are including suicides.

 

[Hohn]

Well over 90% of people who died have consumed water within the previous 48 hours.

Would we conclude that water poisoning causes most deaths? No.



CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSALITY.

And, as the article states (but way down the page):

Fleegler and his team openly acknowledged they could not prove a definitive "cause-and-effect" link between tighter laws and a lower risk of gun-caused homicides or gun-related suicides.

Strike the word "definitive" there as it's a weasel word.

 

[eric001]

This is what happens when politically motivated morons try to pass their garbage off as "science" and pass themselves off as folks with IQ's bigger than their shoe sizes. Anyone with any common sense should be able to see there is no "conclusion" to their "study" whatsoever. Which, of course, means that many in Congress will take this "study" as gospel.

 

[Truckman68]

I agree that statistics can be manipulated to do anyone's bidding. Like the commercial that says (people that eat whole grains tend to weigh less than those who don't) Not directly because of that but because people that exercise and diet are more likely to eat whole grains.

 

[MTC]

Re:

Fewer gun deaths in states with most gun laws, study finds

Study finds that studies have shown that studies have shown that more $$ is needed by "researchers" - who don't have real jobs and produce nothing - to show that studies will show that more studies will show what we want the studies to show.

Regarding the general topic of "studies", gun control and "gun violence":

And what if I could show, empirically or otherwise convincingly, that "fewer guns" (presumably kept or carried by the people) resulted in fewer "gun deaths" or less "gun violence"? Would that be reason enough for -- should it be used as -- a rationalization or justification for the infringement or abrogation of your right to keep and bear arms? If the "crime rate" were reported to be 99% or 100% would you agree that you should be subject to "background checks", psych eval, mandatory requirement to apply for a license/permit/authorization (you submit fingerprints, photo, fees. etc.) to be "allowed" to do what was specifically enumerated and supposedly guaranteed to be your birthright as an American?
What if the "crime rate" or "gun violence" or any other category was shown by "studies" to be near 0%? Does this have any bearing on your rights?

The advantage in creating this relatively new category of "gun violence" -- as opposed to simply violent crime, or issues of crime and punishment -- is that it draws the unaware into the gun control mindset. By framing the issue from the very first sentence, the reader is manipulated through a tactic of "begging the question" or "leading the witness" to conclude, almost subconsciously, that the "obvious" or "logical" or "reasonable" thing to do is to legislatively impose any or all manner of backgroung checks, licensing, registration, taxes, fees, etc. on the purchase, ownership, sale, transfer, transport, or otherwise keeping and bearing of arms by the "people" (who, we are constantly told have no legitimate "need" for such "dangerous weapons") up to and including complete prohibition and confiscation of those arms. Well, except for the police and military, of course, and exempted public officials.

 

[Tandor]

82% of all statistics are made up.

 

[GunnerDan]

Well over 90% of people who died have consumed water within the previous 48 hours.

Would we conclude that water poisoning causes most deaths? No.



CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSALITY.

And, as the article states (but way down the page):


Strike the word "definitive" there as it's a weasel word.

I think we all need to ensure that a ban is put in place for dihydrogen monoxide. I mean this stuff is a real killer...

Gunner...

 

[elaw555]

From the article...

"States with a heavier dose of firearm laws tend to have the lowest rates of gun deaths, according to a study released Wednesday by Boston-based researchers who argue their findings show "there is a role" in America for more rigid gun-control legislation."

All I needed to hear to know that the "researchers" had a predetermined outcome in mind for their "independent" research.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Timing is everything, isn't it.

"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination."
Vin Scully

Read more at Statistics are used much like... at BrainyQuote ​

 

[jwh20]

Fewer gun deaths in states with most gun laws, study finds - Vitals

Please take a few minutes to actually READ this article vs. the title. The actual conclusions of the study, in fact WHAT was studied is NOT accurately conveyed by the headline (big surprise!!)

In fact the study says:

>>>studied information from all 50 states between 2007 to 2010, analyzing all firearm-related deaths reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and data on firearm laws compiled by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Firstly, why ONLY 2007 to 2010? That is a VERY narrow window of time and there are undoubtedly statistics going back much further. The answer to questions like this is ALWAYS - "We picked the date range because the answer(s) we were looking for showed up there."

Second, and VERY importantly, look at the SOURCES! The CDC and the BRADY CENTER! That's a TOTALLY unbiased data source! The Brady Center used to be called Handgun Control, Inc. and is a darling of Sen. Feinstein. They have a SINGLE AGENDA, to rid our nation of firearms, PERIOD! Could it be that their statistics are skewed? Why NO REFERENCE to the most comprehensive and factual statistics available in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports?

And finally this is MOST TELLING:

>>>Despite the findings, researchers did not establish a cause and effect relationship between guns and deaths. Rather, they could only establish an association.

Why couldn't they find a cause & effect relationship? Because one CANNOT be inferred from this type of study. But in spite of that they speak out of BOTH sides of their mouth at once:

a) "Our research gives clear evidence that laws have a role in preventing firearms deaths," said Eric Fleegler, the study's lead investigator and a pediatric emergency doctor at Boston Children's Hospital. "Legislators should take that into consideration."

b) "That failure illustrates the limits of the study," said Garen Wintemute, an emergency physician and director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis.

"Policy makers can really draw no conclusion from this study," Wintemute said, explaining that the study doesn't provide critical answers to which laws work and why.

So WHICH IS IT?

But most people will just read the headline and come to the conclusion that the liberal-media wants!

KNOW THE FACTS! Please read the study with a CRITICAL mind and then write your legislators. The other side WILL be using this to lobby and influence at both the state and local level.

 

[drillsgt]

Please take a few minutes to actually READ this article vs. the title. The actual conclusions of the study, in fact WHAT was studied is NOT accurately conveyed by the headline (big surprise!!)

In fact the study says:

>>>studied information from all 50 states between 2007 to 2010, analyzing all firearm-related deaths reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and data on firearm laws compiled by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Firstly, why ONLY 2007 to 2010? That is a VERY narrow window of time and there are undoubtedly statistics going back much further. The answer to questions like this is ALWAYS - "We picked the date range because the answer(s) we were looking for showed up there."

Second, and VERY importantly, look at the SOURCES! The CDC and the BRADY CENTER! That's a TOTALLY unbiased data source! The Brady Center used to be called Handgun Control, Inc. and is a darling of Sen. Feinstein. They have a SINGLE AGENDA, to rid our nation of firearms, PERIOD! Could it be that their statistics are skewed? Why NO REFERENCE to the most comprehensive and factual statistics available in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports?

And finally this is MOST TELLING:

>>>Despite the findings, researchers did not establish a cause and effect relationship between guns and deaths. Rather, they could only establish an association.

Why couldn't they find a cause & effect relationship? Because one CANNOT be inferred from this type of study. But in spite of that they speak out of BOTH sides of their mouth at once:

a) "Our research gives clear evidence that laws have a role in preventing firearms deaths," said Eric Fleegler, the study's lead investigator and a pediatric emergency doctor at Boston Children's Hospital. "Legislators should take that into consideration."

b) "That failure illustrates the limits of the study," said Garen Wintemute, an emergency physician and director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis.

"Policy makers can really draw no conclusion from this study," Wintemute said, explaining that the study doesn't provide critical answers to which laws work and why.

So WHICH IS IT?

But most people will just read the headline and come to the conclusion that the liberal-media wants!

KNOW THE FACTS! Please read the study with a CRITICAL mind and then write your legislators. The other side WILL be using this to lobby and influence at both the state and local level.

Wow, Garen Wintemute is one of the most rabid anti-gun "researchers" out there, for him to say that must mean even he is not willing to support this 100% even though he is an author!

 

[Surlyhigh]

The sample they used was very small and their science is bad.

 

[Hoosier Carry]

Same study, different write-up:
More gun laws = fewer deaths, 50-state study says - Yahoo! News


"Gun rights advocates have argued that strict gun laws have failed to curb high murder rates in some cities, including Chicago and Washington, D.C. Fleegler said his study didn't examine city-level laws, while gun control advocates have said local laws aren't as effective when neighboring states have lax laws."

What should the title really read?

 

[Excalibur]

Same study, different write-up:
More gun laws = fewer deaths, 50-state study says - Yahoo! News

What should the title really read?

Gun Control: 2nd verse = same as the first

 

[Bummer]

Well over 90% of people who died have consumed water within the previous 48 hours.

Would we conclude that water poisoning causes most deaths? No.

According to the FAQ at DHMO.org:

"Research conducted by award-winning U.S. scientist Nathan Zohner concluded that roughly 86 percent of the population supports a ban on dihydrogen monoxide."

"A similar study conducted by U.S. researchers Patrick K. McCluskey and Matthew Kulick also found that nearly 90 percent of the citizens participating in their study were willing to sign a petition to support an outright ban on the use of Dihydrogen Monoxide in the United States."

More children die every year of DHMO overdose then die of gun violence. Even the rabidly anti-gun Steven D. Levitt, professor of Economics at the University of Chicago and research associate of the American Bar Foundation, acknowledges that DHMO overdose is 100 times more dangerous to children than guns. Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide! Think of the children!

Studies can find pretty much whatever the individual(s) creating the study want. It's all about the spin.