Study Links Gun Laws and Lower Mortality Rates

Now as the researchers point out, correlation does not necessarily equal causation. None the less, this is very interesting. I think the most staggering statistic was that over four years there were 121,084 gun related fatalities.


Perhaps we can take this information and see what gun laws do work to reduce homicide and suicide rates with firearms.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/06/us/guns-laws-mortality/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

 

More holes than Swiss cheese.... Lol

 

Interesting, what do you find "holey" exactly? Do you not think there could be potential benefits to this study?

It's hard to dispute that in states with more gun laws there are lower gun related mortality rates than in states with fewer gun laws.

 

To start , how about a difference of less then one per 100,000 in homicide rate LOL.

- - - Updated - - -

To start , how about an absolute difference of less then one per 100,000 in homicide rate LOL.

 

Feel free to link the exact statistic you are referring to.

And the math still comes out to a 40% lower homicide rate and a 37% reduction in suicide rate. That's substantial.

 

Feel free to read the articles you post as evidence, it saves you the hassle of looking foolish.

The absolute difference in the homicide rates was 0.40 deaths per 100,000.

 

I would like to see what "most gun laws" means. Are they laws guaranteeing freedom such as CHL laws, or laws that are oppressive. Most likely, this is like many liberal "studies". A couple of drunk college professors got together, had some grant money to spend, so bought a case of scotch and had a party. PRESTO! "Study" completed!

 

Funny but the reason that NY's decrease in violent crimes was due specifically to Gulliani being hard on criminals, not law abiding citizens who are the only ones affected by gun laws.

 

Not quite. It was actually a 40% lower FIREARM homicide rate and a 37% lower FIREARM-RELATED suicide rate. It actually didn't say anything about overall rates of either one, just firearm related rates.

The article actually makes no reference to overall rates. Knowing that a lower overall rate would be a stronger defense than a lower firearm rate, I wonder why they neglected to include overall rates. . .

 

I'm curious as to why you think you can judge someone that commits suicide, with a gun or anything else? A gun, a car, or pills, some people live in absolute darkness and this is their choice, not ours.

 

Exactly, liberals are the ones that are soft on crime, and they think singing kum ba yah with murderers is going to change their hearts.

 

Which is exactly what I was referring to. And phrasing it that way doesn't really doesn't lessen the impact.

 

Washington DC, Detroit and Chicago disprove the obviously agenda heavy "study"

 

The study merely affirms common sense, but many firearm fanciers are highly emotional.

Squinty LaP and his North American Man/Gun Love Association should be encouraging the further studies that are needed to determine the best approaches to reducing the gun slaughter rather than scaring the faint of heart.

 

I have no idea what that has to do with anything I posted. It seems to me that you are deflecting to avoid addressing the actual topic.

 

You may believe that is the case in New York City (notice city, not the entire state), but it doesn't explain the correlation across multiple states that have nothing to do with Gulliani.

 

It does if the overall homicide rate and suicide rate are the same or higher in states with stricter gun laws.

Saying that the fact that this is only about firearm incidents doesn't lessen the impact is basically saying that it is ok for people to be killed, as long as they aren't killed by a gun.

I'm sure that a study comparing the number of police-related shootings and the number of police would find fewer such shootings in areas with fewer police. Would this lead you to conclude that we should reduce the number of police, or should we consider other things as well, such as overall homicide rates?

 

If you believe this study, that CNN confermed over the phone, you must believe anything. Anything in the direction of your point of view. Let's study how the lower violence rate relates to the number of Black in the study area.

When I looked for the data in this study all I found was the left media fall all over themselves to believe the guy.

 

Go ahead and post some statistics on overall homicide rates if you think that these aren't significant. Put up.


I never said it was "OK" to kill someone as long as it wasn't with a gun. I simply stated that this study found that in states with stronger gun laws there were 40% less gun related homicides and 37% less gun related suicides. Are you saying that isn't a good thing? Are you saying that even if less people are killed with firearms, people are still killed so it doesn't matter?

- - - Updated - - -

If you have some evidence to suggest that the data in the study is inaccurate, feel free to present it. If you are implying that the study didn't happen, here is a direct link to it. CNN mearly interviewed the lead author over the phone.

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390

But if you want to go off on a racist tirade, save it for one of the 38947325 stormfront threads posted here everyday. Your white pride buddies would be all too happy to apply the lubriderm for you.

 

Automobile, drug related, and accidental deaths would respectively lower the "mortality rate" by a far wider margin than "death by lax gun law"....yet, these commissioned "studiers" focus on "investigating" and publishing a "confirming" preconceived notion....for the expressed purpose of supporting agenda.

This is the kind of "science" progressives rely on to bolster their political positions...while at the same time, labeling anyone who would dare question the veracity of such "anti-science neanderthals" or "regressives"........or, simply "right-wingers"

AGW, anyone?

 

I'm sorry, do you have anything to dispute the claims from the study? Or anything to comment about the study at all? It seems all you can do deflect instead of addressing the actual topic.

We're not talking about drug related or accidental deaths. We're talking about deaths specifically related to firearms, which equal more than 30,000 each year in the United States alone.

I never claimed this was "science". It isn't a scientific study, more of a statistical study. And the data doesn't lie. In states with stricter gun laws, gun mortality rates are significantly lower.

 

My first post in your thread addressed the validity of this "study".....I'm just hammering it home by illuminating the cozy relationship between progressive political agenda and "science"...."statistical", or otherwise.

 

Apparently they do not as the state-wide statistics still hold true. I find it interesting that you call it a "study" and question it's validity. What methods do you find questionable?

Yes it is interesting how progressives base their political opinions on things like "facts" and "scientific evidence" isn't it?

I think you are also illuminating the conservative relationship between ignoring science and statistics and their political agenda. No matter what facts say, they still claim it isn't true and instead continue to insist their beliefs are correct, no matter how much evidence to the contrary.

 

I'd venture, and think many would agree, that the lionshare of "science".... or "studies".... that are either directly commissioned by progressive (or any) politicians, or emanate from government grant supported progressive academia are politically based.....a "justification" of agenda, if you will....therefore, I have little faith in their veracity.

 

Lol...Billy, I might be curious as to why you sidestepped the issue with your extraneous nonsense, but I already know why you prefer to distract than discuss the topic.
You're not fooling anybody.