Gun Violence Study Links State Levels Of Gun Ownership And Homicide

[applegrove]

Gun Violence Study Links State Levels Of Gun Ownership And Homicide

The Huffington Post | By Braden Goyette

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/gun-violence-study_n_3924063.html

"SNIP....................................


Their findings echo past studies about the relationship between gun ownership and homicide, though Siegel, Ross and King look at the relationship over a larger window of time than previous research.

According to a fact sheet from the Harvard School of Public Health:

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

A more localized 1993 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which focused on the most populous counties in Tennessee, Washington and Ohio, found that "keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide."




...................................SNIP"

[Historic NY]

1. Isn't this the same study statistical collections the Congress forbade

the "CDC" Centers for Disease Control, from conducting.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html


http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347

The CDC conducted gun violence research in the 1980s and 1990s, but it abruptly ended in 1996 when the National Rifle Association lobbied Congress to cut the CDC's budget the exact amount it had allocated to gun violence research.

"It's worth pointing out that the language never specifically forbade the CDC from conducting the research," Wintemute said.

The 1997 appropriations bill stated, "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." Congress also threatened more funding cuts if the gun research continued

The message was really clear," Wintemute said.

In 2003, the 1997 bill language was updated to include the words "in whole or in part," which expanded the ban. Then, in 2012, the appropriations bill expanded the restriction to all Health and Human Services agencies

[CTyankee]

2. Is this ever acknowledged by our friendly adversaries in the Gungeon?

I've never seen it addressed there and I hear only crickets when this fact is highlighted here. Perhaps a few of them will visit and make a comment or perhaps offer a rebuttal...

[billh58]

3. The Gungeon is still

studying the study, and the head Gungeoneer has not yet found all of the "mistakes" made by this study, but he is working on it. I'm sure that they will publish an equally peer-reviewed counter-study when they have completed their scientific analysis of these issues. The interim determination by the Gungeoneers however, is that "guns is good," and "more guns will bring down the death toll from gun violence."

In other NRA apologist gun news, if gun control legislation is passed anywhere in this country, the sun will not rise tomorrow.

[CTyankee]

4. I did ask one gungeon frequenter why he didn't challenge that B.U. study with his own data and

research. He claimed that he was pretty good with statistical research so I saId essentially "go for it if you can back it up." Really, it seems to me that they are free to do their own counter research and challenge the validity of that study and others that they don't like.

I haven't heard back...stay tuned.

[DanTex]

8. Ahh, gungeoneers versus science. Always a fun spectacle!

It takes me back to the days where I spent far too much time posting facts and research in the gungeon. A real lesson in the way people find ways to ignore evidence when they really don't want to believe something.

I remember one thread when I had to explain basic algebra to a gungeoneer claiming to be a "math major" but didn't even know what a correlation was.

[CTyankee]

13. Can you explain the "self deletes" in this thread?

something is off somewhere...

[DanTex]

14. Briefly...

SouthernDem says something like "studies are like ping pong balls, they go back and forth"
I ask for some examples.
SouthernDem posts some links to non-peer-reviewed "studies", some of which are just articles on right-wing websites.
I point this out.
Then SouthernDem self-deletes it all.

[CTyankee]

15. Oh, my goodness!

Was it that bad?

[DanTex]

16. Oh it was pretty bad...

You can kind of reconstruct the whole thing from my responses.

[CTyankee]

17. a bit embarrassing, if you ask me...

[billh58]

6. If your observation

Last edited Sat Sep 14, 2013, 11:15 AM - Edit history (1)

is correct, then why did the NRA lobby so hard to prevent the collection of gun violence statistics by the CDC? There must be something that they're afraid of don't you think?

[DanTex]

7. "the other side has studies which supports their side too". For example?

Are there any particular studies that come to mind from the "other side" that you think shed any serious doubt on the repeated findings in the peer-reviewed literature that gun ownership is positively linked with homicide rates?

[DanTex]

11. LOL. First off, none of those are peer reviewed studies. (Do you even know what that is?)

It's only a game of "ping pong" if you are ignorant enough to toss studies around like ping pong balls without actually reading them, or even determining whether they are legitimate peer reviewed science or pure propaganda. (Really, do you know what peer review is?).

The first link you post comes the closest -- the CDC task force -- but the basic findings there are that there is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of certain specific gun control laws (note that it doesn't actually say they are ineffective, they say there should be more studies performed, something the NRA stepped in to prevent from happening). More to the point, that certainly says nothing about the established empirical link between gun ownership rates and homicide, particularly the studies that have been published in the last 10 years on the topic after the CDC report.

Your second "study" is the infamous non-peer reviewed study published in a right-wing law review by Kates and Mauser. That fact that you even include this in your list is testament to your scientific ignorance. It's basically equivalent to linking to a right-wing fundamentalist article about how "the gay" can be cured. Your credibility is pretty much zero after that. This study has massive errors, which I've gone over in detail, since this seems to be a gungeoneer favorite:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117264314#post5

The third study is just a pew survey about people not knowing much about homicide statistics -- totally irrelevant.

The fourth "study", again not peer reviewed, is published on the "libertarian republic" and does not even attempt to do any kind of statistical analysis. Unbelievably, this is even worse than Kates-Mauser.


Sorry, a bunch of random web links does not constitute a "study". Try again!