Science Confirms The Obvious: Gun Laws Are Associated With Fewer Gun Deaths

Ok ats, I posted this title, as it is the title of the article, I normally always participate on the pro gun rights side of these issues, so I took exception to the headline. After reading the article and looking at the graphics, I felt compelled to share this with the community here, so we may get to the bottom of the claims made in the article.

To my eyes, and mind, it seems obvious this is trash science at best, as it clearly says illinois, california and new york have far fewer gun deaths percapita than almost every other state.

Yet I know this cant be correct, as I lived in indiana my entire life, and I can assure you all, chicago alone has many times the gun related deaths every year than my home state, yet their stats and graphics say quite the opposite.

So for our discussion, I woukd like for everyone participating, wether pro or anti gun, to look over the source material, and honestly assess the validity of the claims in the article. So we as a community might be abke to come to an understanding as to the nature of this particular beast, known as gun control.

It will be hard for me, as I am a gun advocate by nature, but as we hardly ever get enough anti gun folks to have anreasonable discussion with bith sides represented, I will attemot to play devils advocate. No promises, but I will try very hard, just for the sake of objectivity.

In the wake of some particularly high-profile mass shootings, the national debate over gun control is perhaps more heated than ever. Does gun control actually result in fewer deaths? Or does the solution lie in some other kind of protection?A study published today in JAMA Internal Medicine found that more firearm laws are in fact associated with fewer firearm deaths, although that may not actually tell us whether one leads to the other.Researchers from Harvard University and the Boston Children's Hospital looked at firearm-related fatalities between 2007 and 2010 and compared each state's rate of firearm fatalities per 100,000 people. They created "legislative strength scores" on a scale of 0 to 28 for each state's firearm laws, with each law counting as one point. (Gun-loving Utah came in with a score of 0, while Massachusetts had the strongest laws with a score of 24.)For the four years they examined, there were 121,084 gun-related deaths in the U.S. -- 73,702 suicides and 47,382 homicides. The overall fatality rate was 9.9 per 100,000 individuals a year. According to the study, there were about 300 state firearm laws on the books across the nation as of 1999.Controlling for various factors like poverty, unemployment, population density and house-hold firearm ownership, the analysis found that a larger number of gun laws in a state was associated with lower rates of both firearm homicides and suicides. However, the researchers didn't make any ground-breaking pronouncement about the relationship between gun laws and gun violence, warning that the study was "ecological and cross-sectional and could not determine cause-and-effect relationship."

It is also possible that gun laws pass in states where there is already a lot of opposition to guns, and don't pass where people are predisposed to own guns. As the researchers point out, "High levels of gun ownership might be related to both high rates of firearm deaths and a cultural environment in which it is more difficult for a state to enact strict firearm laws."However, scientific examination of the causes of gun violence has been handicapped for years due to federal regulations that prohibited using national science funding to "advocate or promote gun control," though President Obama called for an expansion of research in his 23 executive actionson gun control in January."When rates of firearm violence were at historic highs and appeared to be increasing, the government abandoned its commitment to understanding the problem and devising evidence based solutions," UC Davis professor Garen Wintemute writes in the invited commentaryassociated with the study.Wintemute, the director of the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program, points out that this particular study has a few limitations. The legislative scores were based on information from two advocacy groups, The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and did not measure how effectively states might enforce their gun laws or how guns flow between states. The score system hasn't been validated."It is as if the scientists have both hands tied behind their backs," Wintemute writes. "In fact, that is precisely what has happened—not just to these investigators, who did well with the data available to them, but to firearm violence researchers generally."

I dont know how to embed the graphics, sorry, they are easiky viewabke at the link below.

www.popsci.com...

So ats, does this scientific study carry weight, or does this prove that the anti gun club must lie and give fudged dsta and half truths to try and make a very misguided point, under the thinking that the ends justify the means?

reply to post by inverslyproportional


Blech, honestly I am tired of the gun-control threads. It comes down to, you believe what you believe and it is hard to change that. I say that because I don't there is a clear cut answer from science in regards to gun control. From either side you can find (usually crappy) "statistical" evidence to support your own agenda... Arguments like these are usually pretty trash IMO, from either side.

BUT that being said, I would like to contribute this nugget from the references listed by OP's source:

Sullivan S. Bloomberg: gun control should be Obama's ‘number one agenda’. www.washingtonpost.com... Accessed February 26, 2013

Not conclusively implying anything... But that tells me there is very likely an agenda in this article anyway, where they will try to find a specific answer...

Anyway, carry on.

reply to post by Twix404


Thank you for your words, and your participation, I also seem to have no problems finding .....easy to point out issues with the report, though, I am saving my opinion though, as I am attemoting be objective about the discussion, and play devils advocate where needed.

Star for you !

reply to post by inverslyproportional


It's a skewing of statistical data. The key is the term "per capita" (per head- per individual)
en.wikipedia.org...

If I'm reading the graph in your link correctly there are over 12,000 gun deaths per year in California. That's the most in any state that I could find.

It makes absolutely no difference what anyone thinks to me. My mind is STILL my own and will follow my belief that I have more interest in the protection of MY friends and family than any legislative body! Screw anybody who thinks to the contrary!

reply to post by inverslyproportional


I would like to point out something that most people do not think about when it comes to science.

Who funds these scientists?

Is it the goverment?

If so, are these said scientists more concerned about their funding, or the truth?

Science isn't as black and white in todays society as we would like to think it is!

The legislative scores were based on information from two advocacy groups, The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and did not measure how effectively states might enforce their gun laws or how guns flow between states. The score system hasn't been validated.

That is all I needed to read to understand exactly how their "Science" came to the conclusions that it did. Just more anti gun rhetoric from the anti gun lobby.

ETA: When an independent unbiased study is done and they present those facts I will pay attention, but as long as the Brady Center or the LCPGV is involved the motives are obvious.

ETA: Here is another nice gem from the article.

For the four years they examined, there were 121,084 gun-related deaths in the U.S. -- 73,702 suicides and 47,382 homicides.

So 2/3 of the deaths were suicide? How the hell is any gun law going to prevent that? Wow they are really reaching on this one.

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
reply to post by inverslyproportional

 

It's a skewing of statistical data. The key is the term "per capita" (per head- per individual)
en.wikipedia.org...

If I'm reading the graph in your link correctly there are over 12,000 gun deaths per year in California. That's the most in any state that I could find.

Umm...

Gun Related Deaths US

2011: 32,163
2010: 31,672
2009: 31,347
2008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
2003: 30,136
2002: 30,242
2001: 29,573
2000: 28,663
1999: 28,874

12,000 In California alone? Right...

reply to post by inverslyproportional

Unfortunately, I am in agreement with all of you, I cant see any way a journalist could put somthing like this in print, and still claim to be objective. Let alone a suppossed scientific publication.

I thought some of the comments were also pretty amusing, as all but a couple reflected what has already been pointed out by the members here.

I will post some of them later.


Stars for all so far! And thank you for your words.

reply to post by retirednature


"Numbers indicate total firearms-related deaths, 2007-2010"

I was wrong, that number accounts for 4 years.

Find the graph at the OP's link:
Linked again here:
www.popsci.com...

Do you have anything more to add?

Does "firearm related death" include suicides?

Also notice how the article specifically points out Utah, (my home state!), but Utah is only in the second to least category for gun deaths. Perhaps what is really to be gleaned from this agenda-ridden study is that a state's culture has a more direct impact on "firearm related deaths" than the amount of firearms there.


So, while writing this post I closely read the article, and suicides are indeed included in these statistics.

For the four years they examined, there were 121,084 gun-related deaths in the U.S. -- 73,702 suicides and 47,382 homicides.

That being said, this entire study should be thrown out the window. If someone wants to commit suicide taking away guns isn't going to stop them. Therefor suicides are irrelevant for the purposes of this study.

Additionally, for a true look at how gun ownership affects a state, they should look at ALL murders and violent crimes, not just gun deaths. Of course when you have less firearms you will have less firearm related crimes - but what happens to crime overall when you remove the firearms?


This is just another attempt to skew the reality of this topic and garner support for even MORE stripping of American Rights. They should print out a thousand copies of this study and sell it as toilet paper.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


It's funny how they put all of the gun related deaths into two categories too. You were either a suicide or a homicide. What happened to accidental? Every single "credible" statistic I have ever looked at for gun related deaths includes accidental death. Just another chink among many in the chain of credibility on this one.

reply to post by SpaDe_


Agreed.

I guess any time someone dies at the hands of another, accidental or otherwise, it is technically a homicide. Still, I wonder what that chart would look like if we could separate metrics and look at each category individually. I bet it would paint a much different picture.

You'd expect more from Harvard, no? Wait.. Maybe not, academia has become the weapon of choice for dumbing down Americans.

Originally posted by SpaDe_

The legislative scores were based on information from two advocacy groups, The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and did not measure how effectively states might enforce their gun laws or how guns flow between states. The score system hasn't been validated.

That is all I needed to read to understand exactly how their "Science" came to the conclusions that it did. Just more anti gun rhetoric from the anti gun lobby.

ETA: When an independent unbiased study is done and they present those facts I will pay attention, but as long as the Brady Center or the LCPGV is involved the motives are obvious.

ETA: Here is another nice gem from the article.

For the four years they examined, there were 121,084 gun-related deaths in the U.S. -- 73,702 suicides and 47,382 homicides.

So 2/3 of the deaths were suicide? How the hell is any gun law going to prevent that? Wow they are really reaching on this one.

edit on 3/6/2013 by SpaDe_ because: (no reason given)

Yes the data does not define homicide or suicide, tragic loss nonetheless.
For example on one source my states ranks #13 in gun deaths, however on a yearly tally-2010 -, 183 of the 199 of those deaths were suicide, the others were accidental with one undetermined.

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by inverslyproportional

 

I would like to point out something that most people do not think about when it comes to science.

Who funds these scientists?

Is it the goverment?

If so, are these said scientists more concerned about their funding, or the truth?

Science isn't as black and white in todays society as we would like to think it is!

Exactly. Popsci is considered a Liberal source, no? TheAtlantic, Moderate or Liberal? If so then it serves the current gun control agenda.

I am seeing already the "confirmed science" making it's way around to different news outlets.

I guess we all know why they do not throw a bunch of weight behind a cause of death study. Guns would be so low on the list that their insignificance would throw them out of the spotlight forever!

The chart looks pretty straightforward. The figures are based on the number of deaths per 100,000 of the population, California has a dense population, has the a top rating legislation on guns, and has the lowest rating in fatalities per 100,000, along with the other states in light blue, (between 3-8 people) in the period 2007-2010. You could cherrypick all day, childish behaviour, gangs, domestic, nut jobs, protection and accidents and so on. But none of it makes particularly good reading really.

Originally posted by ajay59
I guess we all know why they do not throw a bunch of weight behind a cause of death study. Guns would be so low on the list that their insignificance would throw them out of the spotlight forever!

I woukd really like to play the part of devils advocate here, but I am not really finding a lot of room for me to even try.

All the comments so far have been spot on, if even a bit on the uncritical side, very well done all stars for all.

I guess there is not any way to look at this that does not just smack one across the fafe with its blatant bias.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional

Originally posted by ajay59
I guess we all know why they do not throw a bunch of weight behind a cause of death study. Guns would be so low on the list that their insignificance would throw them out of the spotlight forever!

I woukd really like to play the part of devils advocate here, but I am not really finding a lot of room for me to even try.

All the comments so far have been spot on, if even a bit on the uncritical side, very well done all stars for all.

I guess there is not any way to look at this that does not just smack one across the fafe with its blatant bias.

There may be bias, but there are also disclaimers, those should not be ignored, and no particular federal funding, and I guess not much in the way of state funding either for that project. You could have been devil's advocate then. It also mentions much more research is needed, and when you consider the high figure for suicide, which is not particularly interporlated with others, like perhaps, whole families who may have died as a result of a suicide.

Just like if they banned cars there would be fewer car deaths. This is nonsense.