US study finds link between gun ownership & homicide(no word on LEGAL gun ownership)

[ShooterInPA1]

Researchers in the United States claim to have established a convincing statistical link between gun ownership and homicide, according to a new study.

The study, which appears in the American Journal of Public Health, challenges the National Rifle Association's claim that increased gun ownership does not lead to higher levels of gun violence.

In the absence of state-level data on household gun ownership, the study used a proxy variable -- the percentage of a state's suicides committed with a firearm -- that has been validated in previous research.

The study, led by Boston University community health sciences professor Michael Siegel, is the first of its kind since the December 2012 mass shooting of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

"In the wake of the tragic shooting in Newtown ... many states are considering legislation to control firearm-related deaths," said Siegel in a statement.

http://www.france24.com/en/20130913-...rship-homicide




If I throw loaded handguns into a cage of monkeys, there will probably be monkeys shot. What does that prove?

[Sparks]

While you have to pay to see the actual study, here is the abstract.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...PH.2013.301409

[ideaman]

I wonder if they removed some urban areas from their data what effect would have on their stats?

[harold63]

If I throw loaded handguns into a cage of monkeys, there will probably be monkeys shot. What does that prove?

Throw in some AK's, that way only bad guys will get shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxqIITtTtU

[fortysix]

As with all of these manufactured studies, I take exception to their results. I'm not going to pay for the article, so I can only go by what is in the abstract (thanks for posting that!).

When they counted *homicides*, did they include police shootings, terrorism, accidents, and did they only count murders committed with *owned* (i.e. operated by the original purchaser, not stolen or black marketed)? We know that MAIG enthusiastically used terrorist Tamerlan Tsarnaev as a *gun violence victim*, when he was in fact killed by his brother, by being run over with a car, while fleeing the police after committing a terrorist act. Did they count things such as Tyrone walking into a Wawa and instead of sticking the place up for some *blunts*, getting shot in the face?

Not just that, but there's other statistical problems. I own some 50+ firearms. Does this count as one owner, or 50 firearms? If there are 50 people in my neighborhood, and I'm the only gun owner, would they claim we collectively are all gun owners, thus one murder being committed there would *totally prove* their premise?

As others asked, I'd like to see the data with city data excluded. Cities are not statistically the same as my town, and certainly not the same as more than half the country. There are no city folk in my neighborhood, and amazingly, no one has ever been murdered here. I own firearms with a 100% probability, and I have never killed anyone in the US. How's that for correlation?

I'm calling BS on this *study*. Hopefully I didn't pay for any of it, but I probably did.

[johnydavid]

Man these researchers are smart. I actually found a link between car ownership and vehicle related deaths. I challenge the NTSB on that one buddy.

[fortysix]

The US has, according to the 2007 Small Arms Survey, 94.3 firearms per 100 persons, the highest in the world, and more than 60% higher than the second highest, Serbia, with 58.2 per 100.

The US has, according to the 2011 figures from Gunpolicy.org, 3.60 deaths by homicide (or attributed to homicide, likely includes police shootings and self-defense) per 100,000 persons. An additional 6.30 deaths from suicide by firearm per 100,000 persons as well.

That comes to 1 out of 26194 firearms being involved in a murder, and 1 out of 14968 firearms being involved in a suicide, for a grand total of 1 out of every 9525 firearms being involved in either suicide or murder. While events like Columbine and Sandy Hook and Aurora are bad and capture headlines, the real numbers aren't as horrific as one would claim. Can you imagine the work involved in stopping an event that happens only 1 hundredth of a percent of the time?

I'd venture things like the huge percentage of Americans involved in the drug trade, involved in the race victim industry, involved in the ObamaLife program, these are more likely contributing factors to firearms deaths, and all deaths combined.

[c45man]

The so called study was conducted by Boston University professor in their dept of community health. Obviously the fraud that calls himself an educator on the highest level got the results he set out to find. In academic circles they call such junk studies intellectually dishonest. Typical of the so called studies coming out of leftist colleges which call themselves institutions of higher learning. Indoctranation over education is the mindset of most college professors.

In an open debate on the facts of the matter, the false claims set forth by this professor siegel would be exposed. The United Nations themselves has put out information on crime rates around the world relative to firearm ownership that would contradict siegel's claims which were based on proxy variables on suicides, fancy phrase meaning no credible source addressing an irrelevant subject. Apparently the professor must of missed the data which has Japan and Sweden having the highest suicide rates in the world, despite the draconian gun laws in those countries. The good professor also missed out on the definition of homicide which does not include suicides.

[dannyb]

One of the biggest problems that I have with the whole "debate" in articles like this is the use of the term "gun violence" itself. Gun violence is a political term, not a scientific one. If you take a systems thinking approach, the problem is violence. Violence is not an additive phenomenon, ie, it's not gunviolence + knifeviolence + bludgeonviolence, etc. It's the willingness to perform violent acts coupled with the tool available. If there is a domestic quarrel and one of the participants has a firearm ready to hand and commits a homicide, it doesn't stand to reason that the person would not have committed the homicide had a firearm not been available. The killer could just as easily used some other available tool, but that is not the thinking favored by politicians and purely analytical (let's take it apart and ignore its environment) researchers.

Systems approaches require taking a holistic approach starting with an appropriate framing of the question. Politicians hate systems approaches because they require a broader logic and less emotion. It's so much easier to take a part of the problem, give it a flashy name, and rant about it. That way you don't have to be effective, just vocal.

[Pilot321]

Politicians, and the media manipulate people through emotion. As said previously, "gun violence" generates an emotional response from many low information types. People are violent, not guns, cars, hammers, knives, sewing machines nor bath tubs.