More gun laws? Fewer gun deaths.

[Warren Stupidity]

Conclusions and Relevance A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually. As our study could not determine cause-and-effect relationships, further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association.

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

4 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	More gun laws correlates with fewer gun deaths.
	4 (100%)
	Facts have a liberal bias.
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[apocalypsehow]

1. Kick, Rec, Voted.

[awoke_in_2003]

2. Wouldn't the top two options...

both be true?

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Yes but selecting the second option is a consolation prize.

[Recursion]

3. Fewer guns correlate with fewer gun deaths

Do more gun laws correlate with fewer guns? Possibly; demonstrate it.

My experience living in DC argues "not always".

(I'm not being an ass; that's literally the step I don't believe in.)

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Well that is a good question.

In model 3 we added household firearm ownership rates to the variables included in model 2. Across all 3 models, we analyzed the firearm suicide data by year. Overall firearm-related fatalities and homicide fatalities were aggregated at the state level over the entire 4-year study period: the small numbers of firearm homicides in 12 states precluded the availability of annual data. These aggregate data were divided to derive a mean annual fatality rate. To evaluate whether weighting the relative significance of specific laws would alter the association of the legislative strength score with firearm fatalities, we ran the multivariable model 2 with the quartiles derived from the weighted Brady score as a separate analysis.10 We present age-adjusted absolute rate differences, referenced to quartile 1.

...

One way that firearm legislation may act to reduce firearm fatalities is through reducing firearm prevalence.35 Studies have shown a strong connection between gun ownership and firearm suicide8,36 and firearm homicide.37 A cross-sectional study of all 50 states from 2001 to 2003 found that higher rates of household firearm ownership were associated with significantly higher rates of homicide.38 Similarly, rates of suicide are higher in states with greater rates of household firearm ownership.39

Although our study found an association between legislation strength, firearm availability, and overall firearm fatalities, the nature of this association should be further characterized. Within a state, culture and attitudes toward firearms may confound the association between firearm ownership and firearm legislation. 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. Firearm ownership may also be a mediator of the relationship between the legislative strength score and overall fatalities. The change in the coefficients in the model after the inclusion of household gun ownership rates is consistent with both mediation and confounding.

It is an interesting study. Certainly stricter regulation could cause lower ownership rates and that could be the determining factor, the study did not rule it out. They also looked at non gun related fatalities to check on the possibility that substitution occurs.

From a public health perspective the 30000 fatalities per year is a public health crisis that we can and should mitigate. Reasonable gun regulation is an obvious, and it seems, effective way to do that.

[hack89]

6. How do places like Chicago and DC fit into that construct?

some of the country's strictest gun laws. Some of the country's highest murder rates.

Perhaps factors like poverty, overall crime rates, prevalence of drug gangs might play a role here? Just a thought.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Read the study.

[hack89]

8. They left DC out and averaged Chicago's deaths with the entire state population

obscuring the fact that gun violence is a localized phenomena.

Here is a ranking of cities by crime rates. Look at how many with high murder rates are in "good" states. Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo, Detroit, Los Angeles, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

Their study would fall apart if they left out suicides - there are "worse" states in their study that have extremely low murder rates. There are "good" states with high murder rates - Alabama for instance.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. They didn't leave anything out, they included all 50 states and the entire population.

You are selecting the worst isolated cases to claim the study is invalid. Notice you left, for example, NYC off your list. The study was not about local hotspots of violence, it was a wider examination of the effect of state-wide regulation on state-wide gun crime. It found a correlation.

I'm still waiting for somebody to notice that the Brady Bunch is involved. Horrors.

[hack89]

10. If strong gun laws reduce gun violence

then there should not be hot spots. Why should crime ridden urban areas or peaceful rural areas have different gun death rates if they are subject to the same gun laws?

[kudzu22]

11. Um, it's not the number of laws

but what they say that matters. If you had one law that said all guns are illegal and anyone caught with one will be summarily executed, that'd pretty much eliminate gun deaths.

On the other hand, you could have 10,000 laws outlining what can be done with guns, that have no real effect on violence (such as no shooting at a blue bird on a Tuesday, or no magazines over 10 rounds).

Kinda blows the whole correlation theory.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. The data is what it is.

[kudzu22]

14. And what it is means exactly nothing

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Well that is one conclusion. The authors seemed to think that the data justifies more research into

the public health crisis with gun violence and public policies for mitigating it.

[apocalypsehow]

13. As I predicted when I first saw this poll posted, our "RKBA enthusiasts" have rushed into

the thread attempting to debunk it, not with facts but with silly one-liners like "If strong gun laws reduce gun violence then there should not be hot spots," a non-sequitur if I've ever seen one. As the data is not on their side, it's been rough going for them in that regard, but that hasn't stopped them from trying, largely in the realm of attempting to change the subject - "what about Chicago!!!!11" - or simply ignoring the numbers and making stuff up.

In every instance they've either not even bothered to read the study or to the extent they have it's just been to browse the data they don't like and then return to the OP doing the internet equivalent of stomping their feet and throwing a tantrum. Predictable as the day is long.

Again, thanks for posting.