Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The study hasn't even been published in the Journal of the American Medical Association yet. I don't believe it's been debunked. Now if you mean the opinion of someone on CD forums, I don't accept that as a "debunking."
The research from the study in JAMA clearly indicates an association between firearm suicide and weak gun laws. That is what they analyzed. If there was no association between gun laws and suicide due to firearms, they would not have found the statistically significant effect that they did. Correlation does not equal causation, but there IS a correlation.
In my opinion, Asia for example would have even higher rates of suicide if guns were more available and gun laws less strict.
First of all, the medical establishment is in no position to engage itself in the politics of gun control, given that prescription medications, prescribed by doctors and taken as directed, kill more people than firearms do. In the case of firearm homicides, which average 10-12,000 annually, those prescription drugs kill roughly 20 TIMES more people EACH YEAR. And the vast majority of those mass shootings that are sensationalized by the media, find these madmen to have been taking prescribed psychotropic drugs. I'm betting that the same situation exists relative to the "suicide" deaths involving firearms too. After all, these drugs do include warnings of the possible side effects of suicidal thoughts and aggressive behavior. If anything, the medical establishment should be under indictment far more so than the inanimate objects called guns.
Secondly, JAMA, though enjoying a high level of credibility, deserves none it. By it's very nature and purpose of existence, it has become one of the central distribution centers for a compendium of medical research pros who's greatest talents can be defined as being grand masters in the art of statistical manipulation, running cover, and promoting propaganda from the Pharmaceutical Cartel and it's disastrous destructive effect on the public health, under the guise of disease treatment. Frankly, the content found in JAMA often has little more credibility than what one might find in the National Inquirer.
Thirdly, anyone with even a marginal grasp of common sense should automatically recognize the absurdity of this particular study and it's conclusion, by simply looking at foundational aspects of the study and analyzing the chart created by the politically motivated, anti-gun con artists themselves.
Just a cursory examination reveals a number of flaws, none the least of which is the extremely flawed idea of separating states into 4 groups, and assigning gun regulation values based on the total number of gun laws in each state, rather than the nature of those laws and their impact on gun ownership, or criminal possession of firearms. For example, let's say State-A has minimal restrictive gun ownership laws, allows open carry, but might have 5 or 6 laws that are administrative, and apply to dealers for licensing and insurance, while State-B has no such administrative laws, since their 4 laws practically make it impossible for a citizen to purchase one. Using the study's method of counting the number of gun laws, the least restrictive State-A would be shown as more restrictive than State-B ... when the reality is the exact opposite. The fact is, I neither have the patience or the inclination to explain to you the countless ways in which statistical outcomes can be predetermined right from the outset, deliberately, using such well understood methods practiced by statisticians.
But you don't even need to understand that, in order to understand the blatant, asinine idea that Illinois would appear to be one of the safest states in the country per the chart, while Wyoming, colored blue in the chart is one of the most dangerous. Forget that Wyoming 348 deaths while Illinois had 4,214 ... you're still safer in Chicago
These types of studies are TOTALLY USELESS .... first, because there are countless variables that contribute to increases in violence and murder rates, while most of the homicides can be shown to occur in large, inner city, low income areas ... not out in the suburbs or the country. Some neighboring states with the least restrictive gun laws like Arizona and New Mexico have a 3 fold difference in the number of deaths.
But it doesn't get much more obvious than California (enjoying the safe color code of white on the chart) ... and the left wing loon headquarters of America with some of the most asinine and restrictive gun laws ... their 12,376 gun fatalities is greater than the total fatalities (11,613) of the 8 blue labeled dangerous states of Nevada, Wyoming, Hawaii, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arkansas COMBINED.
But ... but ... but ... Per Capita!!! Per Capita .... it's the per capita rate!! Yes ... it's always something with you liberals .... there is always a perfectly logical reason for believing UP is really DOWN ... and that 2+2=5, or 6, or whatever you want it to be today.
First of all, the medical establishment is in no position to engage itself in the politics of gun control, given that prescription medications, prescribed by doctors and taken as directed, kill more people than firearms do. In the case of firearm homicides, which average 10-12,000 annually, those prescription drugs kill roughly 20 TIMES more people EACH YEAR. And the vast majority of those mass shootings that are sensationalized by the media, find these madmen to have been taking prescribed psychotropic drugs. I'm betting that the same situation exists relative to the "suicide" deaths involving firearms too. After all, these drugs do include warnings of the possible side effects of suicidal thoughts and aggressive behavior. If anything, the medical establishment should be under indictment far more so than the inanimate objects called guns.
Secondly, JAMA, though enjoying a high level of credibility, deserves none it. By it's very nature and purpose of existence, it has become one of the central distribution centers for a compendium of medical research pros who's greatest talents can be defined as being grand masters in the art of statistical manipulation, running cover, and promoting propaganda from the Pharmaceutical Cartel and it's disastrous destructive effect on the public health, under the guise of disease treatment. Frankly, the content found in JAMA often has little more credibility than what one might find in the National Inquirer.
Thirdly, anyone with even a marginal grasp of common sense should automatically recognize the absurdity of this particular study and it's conclusion, by simply looking at foundational aspects of the study and analyzing the chart created by the politically motivated, anti-gun con artists themselves.
Just a cursory examination reveals a number of flaws, none the least of which is the extremely flawed idea of separating states into 4 groups, and assigning gun regulation values based on the total number of gun laws in each state, rather than the nature of those laws and their impact on gun ownership, or criminal possession of firearms. For example, let's say State-A has minimal restrictive gun ownership laws, allows open carry, but might have 5 or 6 laws that are administrative, and apply to dealers for licensing and insurance, while State-B has no such administrative laws, since their 4 laws practically make it impossible for a citizen to purchase one. Using the study's method of counting the number of gun laws, the least restrictive State-A would be shown as more restrictive than State-B ... when the reality is the exact opposite. The fact is, I neither have the patience or the inclination to explain to you the countless ways in which statistical outcomes can be predetermined right from the outset, deliberately, using such well understood methods practiced by statisticians.
But you don't even need to understand that, in order to understand the blatant, asinine idea that Illinois would appear to be one of the safest states in the country per the chart, while Wyoming, colored blue in the chart is one of the most dangerous. Forget that Wyoming 348 deaths while Illinois had 4,214 ... you're still safer in Chicago
These types of studies are TOTALLY USELESS .... first, because there are countless variables that contribute to increases in violence and murder rates, while most of the homicides can be shown to occur in large, inner city, low income areas ... not out in the suburbs or the country. Some neighboring states with the least restrictive gun laws like Arizona and New Mexico have a 3 fold difference in the number of deaths.
But it doesn't get much more obvious than California (enjoying the safe color code of white on the chart) ... and the left wing loon headquarters of America with some of the most asinine and restrictive gun laws ... their 12,376 gun fatalities is greater than the total fatalities (11,613) of the 8 blue labeled dangerous states of Nevada, Wyoming, Hawaii, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arkansas COMBINED.
But ... but ... but ... Per Capita!!! Per Capita .... it's the per capita rate!! Yes ... it's always something with you liberals .... there is always a perfectly logical reason for believing UP is really DOWN ... and that 2+2=5, or 6, or whatever you want it to be today.
You have to look at per capita data in this type of research. Otherwise, naturally, states with more people are going to have higher numbers of everything, whether it's gun deaths or meals served at McDonalds.
THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968
TITLE 18, UNITED STATE CODE, CHAPTER 44....
(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed
importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed
dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliverâ€â€
(1) any firearm or ammunition to any
individual who the licensee knows or
has reasonable cause to believe is less
than eighteen years of age, and, if the
firearm or ammunition is other than a
shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a
shotgun or rifle, to any individual who
the licensee knows or has reasonable
cause to believe is less than twenty-one
years of age........
"It shall be unlawful for any licensed
importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed
dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliverâ€â€"
Note the word "licensed".
I was in a gun club when I was about 10 years old, shooting every week.
At about that time, my step-father gave me a .22 to use (it wasn't mine, but I shot a lot of squirrels with it). I got my first gun from my grandfather when I was 12. My kids got a gun when they were about twelve, if they wanted one. If I choose to do so, I just might give guns to my grandkids when they are 10 or 12, maybe sooner if I deem them to be mature enough to follow the rules.
As in nearly everything, the time to teach gun safety and proper handling is when they are young, not when they are adults. It could turn out to be vital knowledge!
My house is not kid-proof. I expect YOU to house-break your kids!
You have to look at per capita data in this type of research. Otherwise, naturally, states with more people are going to have higher numbers of everything, whether it's gun deaths or meals served at McDonalds.
Does it really matter in the end result? Really? Are 12,000 murders a figure that screams gun control success, compared to 350 murders in another state simply because the state with 350 murders happens to have fewer targets? Please, use your head.
The old axiom "figures lie, and liars figure" is the best definition of the most common application of statistics as we see them used today .. and this particular study is a perfect example. It should come as no surprise that as gun control advocates have elevated their attack on gun ownership to feverish levels never seen in the past 20 years, this "new study" magically comes along, which conveniently reaches the exact opposite conclusion of every other study that's been done over the past several decades, of which those previous studies had universally concluded that the highest rates of gun violence and murder was consistently found to occur in areas with the most restrictive gun laws. This "new study" says .. forget all of that old news, there is a new story in town! Frankly, those that fail to immediately recognize such blatantly obvious chicanery need to just keep their pie holes closed, and stay out of the conversation, because gullibility at that level deserves no voice.
Those who have honestly analyzed "studies" like this one cannot help but to realize what contrived nonsense these studies represent. The fact is, modern statistical analysis in it's current manifestation is by and large, a con game conducted by con men who want to promote an agenda driven, PRE-DETERMINED conclusion. The legitimate use of statistics which are gathered and assessed in an honest and unbiased manner, and used to reach a totally independent conclusion, are more rare these days than Unicorns and Leprechauns.
Case in point ... just read the design paragraph of your cited study for some insight: (this is going to require a bit more brain work than you have been willing to exercise thus far, but you seem to have one, so there is no reason not to use it)
Design Using an ecological and cross-sectional method, we retrospectively analyzed all firearm-related deaths reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System from 2007 through 2010. We used state-level firearm legislation across 5 categories of laws to create a “legislative strength score,†and measured the association of the score with state mortality rates using a clustered Poisson regression. States were divided into quartiles based on their score.
Right off the starting line my first question is why would the study operators use the CDC Web Based Injury Reporting System as their go to source for this study, as opposed to the FBI's Universal Crime Report (UCR) System which was given the responsibility for collecting and compiling such National statistics involving all crimes, including those involving firearms, way back in 1929? Since when is the CDC the go to spot for gun violence statistics? The FBI collects all data from every law enforcement entity in the country, from big city police reports to the local sheriff in podunk USA, and that's the most accurate and legally legitimate source, since it is a crime to alter or manipulate official police reports. I'll clue you in on why .... because everyone else who have conducted similar studies and reached the exact opposite conclusions that this new study reached, naturally used the FBI UCR system for such data, so using the CDC would eliminate direct comparison to this study's statistical data with the data already collected across those numerous previous studies! Remember that bit about figures lie and liars figure?
Next, it claims to use State-Wide Gun legislation as it's measure for determining the relative strength of firearms laws among the 50 States. This ignores (AVIODS) two key factors .... 1) the majority of the gun violence and murder is not uniformly distributed across the entire state in any state .. but occurs in vast majority within the city limits of the larger cities and greatest concentration of individuals of low income, low education high drug trafficking and gang areas within each state ... 2) in a great number of cases, city and town local gun ordinances are far more restrictive than the State-Wide laws in effect. What this technique of avoidance does is allow the study to classify Illinois as one of those "safer states" due to better gun control, while ignoring the fact that Chicago not only has the most restrictive set of laws which make gun ownership virtually impossible, at the same time being one of the most dangerous cities on planet earth. That just doesn't fit the conclusion that more gun laws equal less gun crime, now, does it?
And finally (if this wasn't already enough), we have the last tidbit about measuring the association of the gun legislative score with state mortality rates using a "clustered Poisson regression".
I won't even attempt to try and explain to you what "clustered Poisson regression" is, does or contributes to the conclusions, because frankly, I cannot even give you accurate chemical breakdown of cow manure, even though I know it when I see it. And that holds true for this version of bovine excrement too. But if morbid curiosity overrules intellectual apathy, by all means study up on some of these tools of the trade used by statisticians, like ....
If is a vector of independent variables, then the model takes the form where and .
Sometimes this is written more compactly as where x is now an (n + 1)-dimensional vector consisting of n independent variables concatenated to some constant, usually 1. Here θ is simply a concatenated to b.
Thus, when given a Poisson regression model θ and an input vector X , the predicted mean of the associated Poisson distribution is given by
Makes perfect sense when one puts it in those terms, right? Got all that?
In the 22 years I have lived in Alaska I consider myself fortunate that I have not had to kill any critter in self-defense. When I hunt I only shoot those critters I intend to eat. Since I have absolutely no intention of eating brown bears or grizzly bears, I do not hunt them. I have eaten black bear, but I did not shoot it.
I still carry firearms for protection against brown bears, grizzlies, and moose, but if you pay attention to your surroundings when stomping around in the forest you should not find yourself in a situation where you need to protect your life.
As the adage goes, "it is always better to have a firearm and not need it, than to need a firearm and not have it."
In the 22 years I have lived in Alaska I consider myself fortunate that I have not had to kill any critter in self-defense. When I hunt I only shoot those critters I intend to eat. Since I have absolutely no intention of eating brown bears or grizzly bears, I do not hunt them. I have eaten black bear, but I did not shoot it.
I still carry firearms for protection against brown bears, grizzlies, and moose, but if you pay attention to your surroundings when stomping around in the forest you should not find yourself in a situation where you need to protect your life.
As the adage goes, "it is always better to have a firearm and not need it, than to need a firearm and not have it."
Does black bear taste anything like baby seal or bald eagle?
black bear that have been feeding on berries taste great, one of the best tasting animals.
For the op, those numbers were firearms deaths--all, not just homicide. Alaska has a high suicide rate, especially in the indian towns. The alcoholism and depression in those areas is very high and typically lead to suicide. It is so bad that alcohol is illegal in many of the remote indian villages. The Yukon and Northern Territories of Canada are similar in that they tend to have high rate of suicide mostly from indian villages--some years they cause their provinces of Canada to lead the world in firearms deaths . One guy I was talking to said there are people that will drive down into BC and fill their vehicles with bottles of whiskey for $10 each and they can sell them for $300 each once up at the villages. People get so desperate to escape.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
is a vector of independent variables, then the model takes the form 
where 
and 
.
where x is now an (n + 1)-dimensional vector consisting of n independent variables concatenated to some constant, usually 1. Here θ is simply a concatenated to b.
