The first gun contol study that is difficult to refute?

[himurax13]

After a lengthy argument with some highly enthusiastic individuals, i came accross this study. They believe it is undeniable proof that gun control works.

Here is part of the introduction.

Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively.*

Here is the link:

https://academic.oup.com/epirev/article/38/1/140/2754868

What does the Calgun community have to say about this?

The enthusisatic party in question is a constitutional lawyer who believes that the second amendment is the biggest lie ever told in our nation's history. I would like help to either discount this study or to refute the information that is contained within.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

[FUCA2AFTW]

What does the Calgun community have to say about this?

Or something along those lines.

[hunterb]

So they are studying "other" gun studies? Like every single one that lists suicides as "firearm deaths?"

....flawed from the outset.

[hermosabeach]

When guns got banned in Canada, suicide by gun dropped... suicide rates stayed the same.

So eliminating guns did not deal with the root problem of suicide in Canada


In Australia rape is now rampant.... so get rid of guns stopped mass shootings

They still have a lot of criminals using guns and rape is out of control


So what do you want to do? What problem are you trying to solve?

The end game of gun elimination is to make people reliant on the government.

The parties that give the most freebies stay in power




The same people who want to eliminate guns won’t address why blacks shoot blacks in record numbers




Root cause is what needs to be fixed

[nick]

Sure, "firearm unintentional deaths in children" will go down with fewer guns. And if we ban knives AND confiscate them, the "knife crime" will go down (maybe, as the knife and firearms-related crime is actually up in England despite the bans on both. Criminals didn't get the memo). The crime itself, and accidents themselves? Not likely. People seem to be good at finding ways of killing themselves and others, intentionally ot unintentionally.

Also, this is a study that studied other studies? Without seeing the studies it studied, taking it seriously is... how did you put it? "Enthusiastic". However, the creators of this study do provide this tidbit:

We reviewed peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed published studies between 1950 and 2014. Given the fact that laws are enacted and implemented in social contexts and are not controlled by researchers as in an experimental study, evidence of the consequences of these laws is likely to be generated from observational ecological cross-sectional or longitudinal studies

So, what studies could those be? Selective "peer-reviewed (sometimes) and debunked" studies by the likes of Kellerman and Wintemute? Or the non-peer-reviewed studies akin to the one from then-LCAV where interns went online and googled the newspaper headlines on "gun violence", in order to determine the prevalence of gun violence in our society? Well, you get the point.

And the enthusiastic party in question is an idiot. If he does his legal research the same way he researched this matter, then he better be good at influencing the emotions of the jury, as that's the only way for him to have a shot at winning trials. Then again, he might not be such an idiot, after all, as influencing the emotions anf jurors and judges seems to be the main way of winning trials these days.

[unusedusername]

This is a review paper is based only on the results of other papers, and does not attempt to complete any experiments on it's own.

The issue with them, is that the "strength" of the review paper can only be slightly less strong then the strength of the weakest citation in the paper.

If you look through the citations on the study, they do cite John Lott, but also the who's who of gun control activists that generally wind up on these kinds of papers. The main author of this paper (listed at the end of the list of authors) is among the "usual suspects" that produce research based on flawed methodology. Both Kellerman and Wintemute are listed.

My particular favorite of this group is using non compatible statistics in comparisons. One example is the homicide rate. Japan only adds a homicide to the statistics after it is solved (liberal leaning paper as source). Directly comparing that to the US rates which also include "suspected homicides" (really runaways most of the time) is not a real comparison.

In the UK, a "homicide" is counted when someone is charged with a crime. This means that if someone is murdered, and nobody is ever charged with a crime then the statistics do not count it as have ever happened. Sometimes it is counted years after the crime occurred. (source)

Homicide Index data are based on the year when the offence was recorded as a crime, not when the offence took place or when the case was heard in court.
...

Caution is therefore needed when looking at longer-term homicide trend figures. For example:

• the 172 homicides attributed to Dr Harold Shipman as a result of Dame Janet Smith’s inquiry took place over a long period of time but were all recorded by the police during the year ending March 2003
• the 96 deaths that occurred at Hillsborough in 1989 were recorded as manslaughters in the year ending March 2017 following the verdict of the Hillsborough Inquest in April 2016

In the US, a "homicide" is counted when the police investigate something, even if no crime is later found to have happened. (source)

Homicide, as defined here, includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, which is the willful killing of one human being by another. These data are based solely on police investigation, as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body. The general analyses excluded deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder. Justifiable homicides based on the reports of law enforcement agencies are analyzed separately.

Just the methodology of the statistics would cause the US to have an "inflated" statistic of homicide vs that of the UK.

[PewPewCanuck]

Guns are not banned in Canada, in fact Canadian gun laws are probably less restrictive than in California


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tracy9676]

After a lengthy argument with some highly enthusiastic individuals, i came accross this study. They believe it is undeniable proof that gun control works.

Here is part of the introduction.

Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively.*

Here is the link:

https://academic.oup.com/epirev/article/38/1/140/2754868

What does the Calgun community have to say about this?

The enthusisatic party in question is a constitutional lawyer who believes that the second amendment is the biggest lie ever told in our nation's history. I would like help to either discount this study or to refute the information that is contained within.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

This report is published under an epidemiological study.

Epidemiology is the study and analysis of the distribution (who, when, and where) and determinants of health and disease conditions in defined populations. In short, trying to work out why certain people are getting ill.

Gun violence is not a health condition, disease or illness. Guns violence is not the result of a genetic defect, bacteria or virus. Guns are not a disease which you can determine a vector of transmission.

Gun violence is the result of criminals or individuals with a mental health using a gun to commit a crime.

Medical doctors studies diseases and their treatment. Criminologists study crime. With the narrow exception of mental health specialists diagnosing violent psychopaths, medical professionals should not be in the business of recommending policies regarding gun control. That is the role of politicians, law enforcement and criminologists.

Suicide is not caused by guns. Suicide is a mental health problem. Guns do not have the ability to make people depressed, or change sane people into crazy people.

I would not have a criminologists diagnose and remove my appendix, anymore than I would have a doctor to determine the motive and method of how criminals gain access to firearms, select their victims, and write laws used to prevent their use.

Consolidating 130 studies under a mix of widely varies conditions, countries, and populations and implying recommendations without looking at the raw data and it's underlying assumptions is statistical inconsistent basis for conducting a study. You would need to normalize factors for differences in race, culture, economic, etc... across 10 different countries...when comparing to the US.

Lastly, medical professionals have no business in recommending policies that would limit or restrict what is a constitutional right. They are not legislators, lawyers or judges, they are doctors.

[ACfixer]

None of it matters, true,false, whatever. None of it matters.

The founding fathers realized liberty is more important than perceived security.

Canada, Germany, Australia, I don't care. They didn't have the 2nd amendment and that's why we're the USA and they suck balls.

[FUCA2AFTW]

None of it matters, true,false, whatever. None of it matters.

The founding fathers realized liberty is more important than perceived security.

Canada, Germany, Australia, I don't care. They didn't have the 2nd amendment and that's why we're the USA and they suck balls.

In other words:

[himurax13]

This report is published under an epidemiological study.

Epidemiology is the study and analysis of the distribution (who, when, and where) and determinants of health and disease conditions in defined populations. In short, trying to work out why certain people are getting ill.

Gun violence is not a health condition, disease or illness. Guns violence is not the result of a genetic defect, bacteria or virus. Guns are not a disease which you can determine a vector of transmission.

Gun violence is the result of criminals or individuals with a mental health using a gun to commit a crime.

Medical doctors studies diseases and their treatment. Criminologists study crime. With the narrow exception of mental health specialists diagnosing violent psychopaths, medical professionals should not be in the business of recommending policies regarding gun control. That is the role of politicians, law enforcement and criminologists.

I would not have a criminologists diagnose remove my appendix, anymore than I would have a doctor to determine the motive and method of how criminals gain access to firearms, select their victims, and the laws used to prevent their use.

Suicide is not caused by guns. Suicide is a mental health problem. Guns do not have the ability to make people depressed, or change sane people into crazy people.

Reading a bunch of studies under a mix of widely varies conditions, countries, and populations and implying recommendations without looking at the raw data and it's underlying assumptions is statistical inconsistent basis for conducting a study.

Lastly, medical professionals have no business in recommending policies that would limit or restrict what is a constitutional right.

Thank you sir, that is the sort of direction i was looking for.

I am also trying to expose the multiple forms of bias this study is most likely loaded with. For instance, the studiesnthat were selected most likely agreed with the initial hypothesis.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

[ACfixer]

In other words:

Well maybe a super-duper extra jumbo tragedy.

[Allhailflintlocks]

The study can be refuted with a simple question - what is the murder rate per 100,000 in each of the countries referenced?

Now if the study authors want to emphasize all deaths related to firearms, well then they have a point. Except......as already noted Canada's suicide rate is the same, Australia's rate initially dipped but is back up to pre-ban levels and climbing, Japan's suicide rate is a third more than that of the US - and this is a country with almost no private gun ownership.

Accidental deaths, though tragic, are also a non-factor. We have around 250 million guns in this country with around a 50% ownership rate if not more. Throw in millions of owners in households and I wouldn't be surprised if upwards of two thirds of the country has some degree of exposure to guns. Now mix in the criminal element who I doubt are much into firearms safety and we have a yearly accidental death number of....brace yourselves....under 500. And that number is going down in spite of a growing population and number of firearms in the country. I'd like to see a statistic comparing the accident rate per no of guns per population vs other countries. I suspect the US would come out as much safer.

So what else does the study have? Far more injuries attributed to firearms, and that's a valid point. But we also have to consider that this is so because we simply have far more firearms. The same correlation can be applied to autos (we having far more vehicles per capita than any other country), drug overdoses (there being a tremendous drug abuse problem here), and medical related errors (and not surprising because we also have the most doctors).
With this reasoning we can make an argument for camel control in the Middle East because those countries have a far higher rate of injuries and deaths from camels then we do here.

The study is flawed, biased, and I believe it was assembled to "prove" a conclusion that was already initially decided upon by the authors. Nevertheless the major suspects will trumpet this study as more proof that "gun control saves lives!".

[himurax13]

Sure, "firearm unintentional deaths in children" will go down with fewer guns. And if we ban knives AND confiscate them, the "knife crime" will go down (maybe, as the knife and firearms-related crime is actually up in England despite the bans on both. Criminals didn't get the memo). The crime itself, and accidents themselves? Not likely. People seem to be good at finding ways of killing themselves and others, intentionally ot unintentionally.

Also, this is a study that studied other studies? Without seeing the studies it studied, taking it seriously is... how did you put it? "Enthusiastic". However, the creators of this study do provide this tidbit:



So, what studies could those be? Selective "peer-reviewed (sometimes) and debunked" studies by the likes of Kellerman and Wintemute? Or the non-peer-reviewed studies akin to the one from then-LCAV where interns went online and googled the newspaper headlines on "gun violence", in order to determine the prevalence of gun violence in our society? Well, you get the point.

And the enthusiastic party in question is an idiot. If he does his legal research the same way he researched this matter, then he better be good at influencing the emotions of the jury, as that's the only way for him to have a shot at winning trials. Then again, he might not be such an idiot, after all, as influencing the emotions anf jurors and judges seems to be the main way of winning trials these days.

Well, this particular douchenozzle is more booksmarts than anything else. He is easily triggered and I doubt that he would be able to keep his **** together in person. Honestly, I have never had this much trouble handling any of these lunatics in the past.

This fellow is on a whole other level of bat**** crazy. I plan to completely and uterly emasculate him even though he has far more knowledge of the law, but his knowledge on how to ananlyze a study properly is on par with your average gun grabbing liberal.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

[tracy9676]

Thank you sir, that is the sort of direction i was looking for.

I am also trying to expose the multiple forms of bias this study is most likely loaded with. For instance, the studiesnthat were selected most likely agreed with the initial hypothesis.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

The hubris of medical professionals who believe that since they can track, predict, and develop strategies to stop the spread of a disease, and apply the same methods to treat the human condition of violence & crime. It just reinforces my belief they don't know they are talking about.

This is the very reason why the CDC should keep their noses out of the issue of gun control.

Human nature is infinitely more complex and unpredictable than any mere disease.