JAMA says more gun laws fewer deaths

[mojo84]

JAMA Internal Medicine Study Shows States with Most Gun Laws Have Fewer Deaths

http://www.programbusiness.com/News/JAM ... ate_030813

Anyone surprised?

[RottenApple]

They obviously haven't looked at Chicago.

[JALLEN]

Another instance where 67.3% of the time statistics are misleading and the rest of the time flat wrong.

[tbrown]

Physician heal thyself.

[RX8er]

I find much interest in this:

"Correlation does not imply causation," he wrote. "This fundamental limitation is beyond the power of the authors to redress."

He added that the list of laws takes no account of differences between states in the specifics of laws and takes no account of how hard states worked to enforce those laws.

The biggest difficulty, Wintemute continued, is that almost all of the associations between more laws and fewer deaths disappeared when the investigators took into account the prevalence of gun ownership in each state.

"This is a problem because there are two completely opposite explanations for why that might be the case," Wintemute said in a video issued by his university. "One is that these laws work, and that they work by decreasing the rate of gun ownership in a state, because we know that the rate of gun ownership is associated with the rate of violent death in a state.

"But the other possibility, that's at least as plausible, is that it's easier to enact these laws in states that have a low rate of gun ownership to begin with. Gun ownership is not as important in those states, there's less opposition."

He added, "We really don't know what to do with the results. We cannot say that these laws -- individually or in aggregate -- drive firearm death rates up or down."

[RottenApple]

I find much interest in this:

"Correlation does not imply causation," he wrote. "This fundamental limitation is beyond the power of the authors to redress."

He added that the list of laws takes no account of differences between states in the specifics of laws and takes no account of how hard states worked to enforce those laws.

The biggest difficulty, Wintemute continued, is that almost all of the associations between more laws and fewer deaths disappeared when the investigators took into account the prevalence of gun ownership in each state.

"This is a problem because there are two completely opposite explanations for why that might be the case," Wintemute said in a video issued by his university. "One is that these laws work, and that they work by decreasing the rate of gun ownership in a state, because we know that the rate of gun ownership is associated with the rate of violent death in a state.

"But the other possibility, that's at least as plausible, is that it's easier to enact these laws in states that have a low rate of gun ownership to begin with. Gun ownership is not as important in those states, there's less opposition."

He added, "We really don't know what to do with the results. We cannot say that these laws -- individually or in aggregate -- drive firearm death rates up or down."

IOW, "we spent a lot of research money and didn't manage to learn a single useful thing". That about sum it up?

[baldeagle]

You guys missed it.

"States that have the most laws have a 42% decreased rate of firearm fatalities compared to those with the least laws," said Dr. Eric W. Fleegler, an attending physician in pediatric emergency medicine at Boston Children's Hospital and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School.

He's correct. (Mind you, I'm choosing not to quibble with his numbers. I don't know if the study is really accurate or not, but the basic point is correct.)

What he fails to point out is that when guns are banned violent crime dramatically increases and so does overall crime. Of course gun fatalities decrease. There are less guns to use in fatalities. But that's not the point. Removing guns doesn't solve the problem of crime. It only reduces the problem of crimes committed with guns while dramatically increasing the problem of overall crime and violent crime. And it doubles (at least) the chance that you will be a victim of crime.

Liberals use this tactic repeatedly. For example, they point out that England's firearm fatality rate is dramatically lower than the US. And it is. What they don't point out is that England's gun laws have created an extremely violent and crime ridden society. The same thing is happening in Australia as well, another "civilized" country that has outlawed guns.

Now the doctors in England are calling for a ban on long kitchen knives! Rather than address the real problem, which is violent felons, they want to further disarm the law abiding citizens. It's insanity, but that's liberalism.

Remember, the title of John Lott's book isn't More Guns, Less Gun Fatalities.

[Pawpaw]

Shamelessly stolen from another site:

ACADEMIC TALK
The following list of phrases and their definitions might help you understand the mysterious language of science and medicine. These special phrases are also applicable to anyone working on a Ph.D. dissertation or academic paper anywhere!

"It has long been known" = I didn't look up the original reference.

"A definite trend is evident" = These data are practically meaningless.

"While it has not been possible to provide definite answers to the questions" = An unsuccessful experiment, but I still hope to get it published.

"Three of the samples were chosen for detailed study" = The other results didn't make any sense.

"Typical results are shown" = This is the prettiest graph.

"These results will be in a subsequent report" = I might get around to this sometime, if pushed/funded.

"In my experience" = once.

"In case after case" = twice.

"In a series of cases" = thrice.

"It is believed that" = I think.

"It is generally believed that" = A couple of others think so, too.

"Correct within an order of magnitude" = Wrong.

"According to statistical analysis" = Rumor has it.

"A statistically oriented projection of the significance of these findings" = A wild guess.

"A careful analysis of obtainable data" = Three pages of notes were obliterated when I knocked over a glass of pop.

"It is clear that much additional work will be required before a complete understanding of this phenomenon occurs"= I don't understand it.

"After additional study by my colleagues" = They don't understand it either.

"Thanks are due to Joe Blotz for assistance with the experiment and to Cindy Adams for valuable discussions" = Mr Blotz did the work and Ms Adams explained to me what it meant.

"A highly significant area for exploratory study" = A totally useless topic selected by my committee.

"It is hoped that this study will stimulate further investigation in this field" = I quit.

[TexasGal]

I understand a lot of their basis for the study came from figures from the VPC.

[baldeagle]

I understand a lot of their basis for the study came from figures from the VPC.

In that case it's pure baloney.

[Vol Texan]

A statistician is a person who - when he has his head in the oven, and his foot in the freezer - says, "On average, I feel fine!".

[TexasGal]

[bagman45]

Unfortunately, the popular media has picked this up, and is wearing it out.... As usual; don't confuse them with facts....

[mojo84]

This is why I think it's important for us to continue putting forth fact based evidence and the studies that show the real story. Even though we think the anti-gun crowd ignores facts, which most do, there are some that will sober up and may swing or way. If not change teams completely, they may lose interest in taking our guns away.

Is there a publicly available consolidated list of resources and studies with links that are fact based to which we can refer or point others?

[punkndisorderly]

Even if it were true, and to say I have doubts is putting it mildly, gun control laws are still a bad idea. I'm unwilling to give up my right to protect my life, the lives of my family, or my god given rights even IF that might reduce gun deaths.

Beyond that, while reducing gun deaths may be an admirable goal, if those reduced deaths equate to more victimization of people in the form of increases in rape, robbery, assault, theft, and other crimes, greater gun control is still a loser. Doubly so when it disproportionaly impacts women, the disabled, or the elderly in their ability to defend themselves, particularly when the threat comes in multiples.

It also fails to factor in who is actually getting shot. One hardened criminal killing another is not necessarily a bad thing. A victim killing their would be attacker also not necessarily a bad thing.