Posted on 09/12/2013 7:46:51 PM PDT by Pharmboy
“State levels of gun ownership were estimated using a well-established proxy variable: the percentage of a state’s suicides that are committed with a firearm (FS/S).”
No wonder they get the results they do. Such a “proxy” is worthless. They in fact say they use that proxy “Because there is no state-level survey that measures household gun ownership”, then they add “The proxy correlates highly with survey measures of household firearm ownership, the authors said”.
So there is no state-level surveys that measure household gun ownership, so they use a proxy instead that “correlates highly with survey measures of household firearm ownership””
What “survey measures of household firarm ownership” can they be referring to, after they admitted there are no such state-level surveys and the research is comparing states???
Sounds like a lot of garbage science to me.
Um, the Harvard Study that was just released showed kinda the exact opposite.......strange.
Nope. Just packers.
The state of Illinois would have a high rate of deaths from guns because of Chicago gone mad. The rest of the state is peaceful and armed. But because the two are thrown in together, the claim can be made.
Demographics for LA: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/22000.html
Demographics for NH: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/33000.html
“gun violence” or “gun homicides” is a propaganda statistic.
What matters is total unjustified homicides.
If “gun homicides” go up, but total unjustified homicides go down, it is a win.
If “gun homicides” go down, but total unjustified homicides go up, it is a loss.
They are attempting to define the biggest part of the debate out of the question.
Criticisms:
1) Correlation does not prove causality.
2) Most similar studies show the correlation to be inverse to the one reported here.
3) The study—as the authors admit—doesn’t control or account for the strong probability that higher levels of gun violence motivate higher levels of gun ownership.
4) The study does not account for the fact that most homicides are committed by a relatively small percentage of the population, and that such people’s access to firearms is not significantly impacted by laws regulating firearms ownership and use.
5) The study fails to account for the fact that a lower per capita rate of gun ownership may also correlate with a higher homicide rate by means other than firearms.
6) The study does not consider the benefits of a higher per-capita rate of firearms ownership, such as more crimes being prevented by way of self defense.
They start with a strawman argument: “the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) claim that increased gun ownership does not lead to increased gun violence.”
I do not think the NRA has ever made that argument. The real claim is that increased gun ownership does not lead to increase unjustified homicides.
The completely sidestep that claim by only looking at “gun violence”, however they define that.
And about 300 miles up the Mississippi from New Orleans...
“The start of the opening sentence gave it away: unprincipled anti-scientific Marxist propaganda.”
Public health today is Marxist nanny-statism on steroids.
Maybe it’s TVA water....
Lies, damn lies, and statistics!
CA....
Come on people; it’s Boston University, they have never done any studies that were favorable to any conservative or Constitutional principals.
1) correlation correlates to causality, causing a strong correlation of causality....
2) those other studies are deeply flawed, and outdated.
3) results of our correlation indicate that higher levels of gun violence may motivate higher levels of gun ownership, which would necessarily lead to higher levels of homicides...
4) most homicides are committed by a person well known by, or related to, the victim; and it is a well known fact that one is more likely to be killed by a gun one owns than by a stranger’s gun, so a higher availability of guns increases one’s odds of being killed by a gun; besides the ‘relatively small percentage of the population’ remark is racist inspired code ...
5) homicides not committed by means of firearms are a different issue; and besides everyone knows that being murdered by a gun is worse than being murdered by any other means, so this objection is nothing more than a strawman.
6) there is no way to know how many, if any, crimes are prevented by so-called self defense by gun owners; as the Zimmerman case proved, self defense is often a screen for cold blooded, racially motivated murder...
6) we are public health experts with no agenda beyond the public good and saving lives, and are obviously more intelligent than anyone else, or they would be public health experts as well, and we say it is so: 500,000 Democratic politicians can’t be wrong, since they support us!
THAT is the kind of crap arguments the Lefties will use to defend this “study”.
State levels of gun ownership were estimated using a well-established proxy variable: the percentage of a state’s suicides that are committed with a firearm (FS/S). Because there is no state-level survey that measures household gun ownership
LMAO
Would that be the same Boston where everyone in the city was on lock down for 24 hours while they were looking for the bomber?
I think so.
And how many homicides were committed by the legal gun owner?
Does the study include “Justifiable Homicides”? More guns,less criminals alive.
Just like the link between Islam and terrorism!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.