The gun study Obama has been waiting for.....

[ezkl2230]

A Boston Univ. study recently released finds that "for every one percentage point in the prevalence of gun ownership in a given state, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent." The study says we have an average of 4 homicides per 100,000, and the author of the study states that the study "...suggests that measures which succeed in decreasing the overall prevalence of guns will lower firearm homicide rates."

But the article says that the study also acknowledges the long term downturn in homicides in the US, to its lowest level of 3.5 per 100,000.

So while the study says that homicides should be rising almost 1% for every 1% increase in legal gun ownership, the actual crime data say otherwise. And despite the older Harvard study that indicates that more legally owned firearms do not lead to more gun related deaths, the author of this study is still clinging to the myth that disarming law abiding citizens will cause criminals to put down their own weapons.

The article doesn't indicate whether the study differentiates between justifiable homicide (lawful self defense) and criminal homicide. I'm guessing the answer to that question is no.

Still, Obama has been waiting for someone to produce a study that seems to boost his agenda; the authors of this study would seem to indicate that it does.

Link Removed

 

[Burtboomer]

I love it when someone with the right connections can publish something(absolutely no bias involved of course)and because the math won't come out like they want it to they just move.the words around and publish it anyway,and they'll put some kind of "but I can't explain why the numbers keep ending up this way" at the bottom of the article and go collect their money or recognition from whoever needs it for there agenda.it's a sad reality that these people overlook or choose to overlook the obvious. YOU SIR ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

 

[NavyLCDR]

It's too bad these "studies" won't separate justifiable homicide from criminal homicide. If 100,000 new gun owners commit 100 homicides with guns, and 90 of those homicides are justified self defense.... sure - making the guns illegal will reduce homicides. It will take away the 90 justifiable homicides and leave the 10 criminal homicides.

 

[kelcarry]

It's too bad these "studies" won't separate justifiable homicide from criminal homicide. If 100,000 new gun owners commit 100 homicides with guns, and 90 of those homicides are justified self defense.... sure - making the guns illegal will reduce homicides. It will take away the 90 justifiable homicides and leave the 10 criminal homicides.

And let us not forget the "reliable" source of this "reliable" study--a university with ivory tower academics whose noses are the same color as the yada yada of the idiot in the whitehouse. They surely "bent over" to get this result.

 

[JohnD13]

Like any survey ever done, the results are exactly what the party paying for it want them to be.

 

[jcreek]

It's too bad these "studies" won't separate justifiable homicide from criminal homicide. If 100,000 new gun owners commit 100 homicides with guns, and 90 of those homicides are justified self defense.... sure - making the guns illegal will reduce homicides. It will take away the 90 justifiable homicides and leave the 10 criminal homicides.

Actually, it'd probably turn a decent percentage of the justifiable homicides INTO criminal homicides.

 

[Danieljoe1]

And this is why I hate stats. There are way to many ways to skewer the results.

 

[dcselby1]

So,what would explain the drop in firearm murder by some 48% between 1981 and2010? With an increase of 150 MILLION guns? (Received from the NRA-ILA just today)
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/9/more-guns,-less-murder.aspx?s=Boston+study&st=&ps=
MORE GUNS LESS MURDER?

Posted on September 13, 2013
"Stampede" would only slightlyexaggerate the speed with which anti-gun public health researchers responded toPresident Obama's call for $10 million to fund "gun violence"research earlier this year. Within a short time, gun control-supportingnumber-crunchers who had been given tax dollars to produce "studies"promoting gun control in the 1990s, before Congress turned off the spigot,assembled in Washington, D.C., to compile a Link Removed of topics they want to be paid to "study" today.

This week, Boston University researchers chimed in too, releasing a study to bepublished soon in the American Journal of Public Health, claiming to have found"a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higherfirearm homicide rates."

Gun control advocates may want to hold off on popping champagne corks tocelebrate, however. The study did notconclude that there is any cause-and-effect relationship between gun ownershipand gun homicides. The same wastrue of a similar study, released by Boston Children's Hospital earlier thisyear, leading even Garen Wintemute--one of the most anti-gun public healthresearchers in America--to say "Policy makers can draw no conclusions fromthis study."

Additionally, over the 1981-2010 period considered by the new study--duringwhich restrictions on carrying firearms and many other gun control laws wereeliminated or ameliorated at the federal, state and local levels, and the number of privately owned guns in theUnited States rose by about 150 million--the U.S. firearm murder rate declined48 percent.

Furthermore, gun ownership levels do not correlate to the percentage of murderscommitted with firearms. Consider the following examples: The District of Columbia,with about one-tenth the per capita gun ownership of Louisiana, had the samepercentage of murders with guns between 1980-2011. Illinois, with less thanhalf the gun ownership of Kentucky, had a slightly higher percentage of murderswith guns. Maryland, with about half the gun ownership of Tennessee, had aslightly higher percentage of murders with guns. Connecticut and New York, withless than half the gun ownership of North Carolina, had about the samepercentage of murders with guns. California, with two-thirds the gun ownershipof Texas, had a greater percentage of murders with guns. Hawaii, with less thanone-sixth the gun ownership of South Dakota, had a just slightly lowerpercentage of murders with guns.

Also, during the five years 2007-2011, as compared to the five years 1980-1984,the greatest decline in firearm murder rates occurred in Alaska, Texas, andWyoming (states with relatively non-restrictive gun laws) and Hawaii and NewYork (states with particularly restrictive gun laws). The greatest increasesoccurred in Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland and New Jersey (states withrestrictive laws) and in Pennsylvania (which has relatively non-restrictivelaws laws). Arizona and Louisiana had better trends than Connecticut and RhodeIsland. Utah, Nevada and Idaho had better trends than California.

To the Boston researchers we would say "nice try," but that, too,would be exaggerating.

 

[sdprof]

Once again, correlation is not causation.

Could it not be, that for every 0.9% increase in homicide, 1% of the people decide it's a good idea to arm themselves?

 

[maybejim]

Once again, correlation is not causation.

Could it not be, that for every 0.9% increase in homicide, 1% of the people decide it's a good idea to arm themselves?

I don't understand what you are trying to say. The facts show that with the increase of gun ownership by law abiding citizens for whatever reason, homicide rates have gone down. Causation? Maybe, maybe not. But what it does show is that increased gun ownership is not associated with higher homicide rates. Thus restricting gun ownership serves no purpose except to make it safer for criminals including government agents.

 

[sdprof]

I don't understand what you are trying to say. The facts show that with the increase of gun ownership by law abiding citizens for whatever reason, homicide rates have gone down. Causation? Maybe, maybe not. But what it does show is that increased gun ownership is not associated with higher homicide rates. Thus restricting gun ownership serves no purpose except to make it safer for criminals including government agents.

First of all, the "study" seems to have little basis as the homicide rate (of all types) has been generally falling for many years. So what's the guy measuring?

My comment was to simply invert the relationship the study purports. Is it higher gun ownership leads to higher homicide rate, or vice versa. There's no way to prove one other the other is the determining factor. There's only his purported relationship, which I think is a faulty conclusion in the first place.

As to the rise of gun ownership, there's been debate on whether the number of gun owners has decreased or increased. Some studies/surveys indicated falling numbers of gun owners, and that the increase in gun sales is previous owners buying more guns. Yet, there's ample anecdotal evidence that many first time owners are making purchases. I think the surveys that reveal fewer gun owners are just not getting truthful answers from the owners, or the survey populace is skewed. With millions of new guns entering the market each year, there has to be a good portion of those guns going to new owners. And darn few owners ever get out of it all together.

From all the facts and reports and other stuff, the one conclusion that is irrefutable is that more guns in the hands of the citizenry has NOT resulted in blood in the streets, gunfights at every slightest provocation, doom and despair. The greater portion of the gun owning public are good, responsible people. And the dang gubberment should just leave us alone!

 

[ezkl2230]

First of all, the "study" seems to have little basis as the homicide rate (of all types) has been generally falling for many years. So what's the guy measuring?

My comment was to simply invert the relationship the study purports. Is it higher gun ownership leads to higher homicide rate, or vice versa. There's no way to prove one other the other is the determining factor. There's only his purported relationship, which I think is a faulty conclusion in the first place.

As to the rise of gun ownership, there's been debate on whether the number of gun owners has decreased or increased. Some studies/surveys indicated falling numbers of gun owners, and that the increase in gun sales is previous owners buying more guns. Yet, there's ample anecdotal evidence that many first time owners are making purchases. I think the surveys that reveal fewer gun owners are just not getting truthful answers from the owners, or the survey populace is skewed. With millions of new guns entering the market each year, there has to be a good portion of those guns going to new owners. And darn few owners ever get out of it all together.

From all the facts and reports and other stuff, the one conclusion that is irrefutable is that more guns in the hands of the citizenry has NOT resulted in blood in the streets, gunfights at every slightest provocation, doom and despair. The greater portion of the gun owning public are good, responsible people. And the dang gubberment should just leave us alone!

I can tell you from my own experience selling firearms for a national retailer that, at least in my area, it is fairly evenly split between first time firearms buyers and repeat buyers.

 

[AndeyHall]

A Boston Univ. study recently released finds that "for every one percentage point in the prevalence of gun ownership in a given state, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent." The study says we have an average of 4 homicides per 100,000, and the author of the study states that the study "...suggests that measures which succeed in decreasing the overall prevalence of guns will lower firearm homicide rates."

But the article says that the study also acknowledges the long term downturn in homicides in the US, to its lowest level of 3.5 per 100,000.

So while the study says that homicides should be rising almost 1% for every 1% increase in legal gun ownership, the actual crime data say otherwise. And despite the older Harvard study that indicates that more legally owned firearms do not lead to more gun related deaths, the author of this study is still clinging to the myth that disarming law abiding citizens will cause criminals to put down their own weapons.

The article doesn't indicate whether the study differentiates between justifiable homicide (lawful self defense) and criminal homicide. I'm guessing the answer to that question is no.

Still, Obama has been waiting for someone to produce a study that seems to boost his agenda; the authors of this study would seem to indicate that it does.

Link Removed

Here's why I don't like when people do these "studies"...they use misleading wording. They say reducing the number of guns will decrease the number of gun homicides. Well DUH! What they really should be comparing is gun ownership to the OVERALL homicide rate. I mean think of it like this...if you eliminate all water, then you just solved the problem of accidental drownings! But guess what, you've just caused a whole slew of other problems cause now there's no water. Eliminate all guns and yes, the GUN HOMICIDE rate will go down, but what other problems will you cause? My guess is the overall crime rate goes up because people are willing to take their chances when the most likely risk is just getting beaten up. But if they don't know if they're going to be shot at or not, that changes things.

 

[ezkl2230]

Here's why I don't like when people do these "studies"...they use misleading wording. They say reducing the number of guns will decrease the number of gun homicides. Well DUH! What they really should be comparing is gun ownership to the OVERALL homicide rate. I mean think of it like this...if you eliminate all water, then you just solved the problem of accidental drownings! But guess what, you've just caused a whole slew of other problems cause now there's no water. Eliminate all guns and yes, the GUN HOMICIDE rate will go down, but what other problems will you cause? My guess is the overall crime rate goes up because people are willing to take their chances when the most likely risk is just getting beaten up. But if they don't know if they're going to be shot at or not, that changes things.

As I have posted to other threads, yes, in Britain the gun homicide rate went down, but their overall violent crime rate skyrocketed to the point where they have been declared the most violent country in Europe five years running. Where the US has a violent crime rate of about 400 per 100,000 population, Britain's violent crime rate is over 2,000 per 100,000 population. An article in the Mail Online stated that Britain has a violent crime rate worse than the US AND South Africa.

"Britain has been held up as an example of what gun control can do for the country, but while they have successfully lowered the number of firearm-related murders, murders committed using other methods has actually increased, and Britain's overall incidence of violence has increased to the point where it has been declared the most violent nation in Europe (The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online). *The US has an incidence of violent crime of a little over 400 per 100,000 population. *The latest data indicates that Britain, on the other hand, has an incidence of over 2,000 *per 100,000 population; that number has steadily increased in the years that have followed Britain’s own gun ban. *In taking away the citizens' right to defend themselves, they have turned themselves into a nation of victims."

 

[sdprof]

We are at a point that reducing the guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (the only ones who would, in any measure, comply with any gun bans) will not reduce the number of guns the criminals have and use. They're called "criminals" for a reason.