. ......More gun laws = fewer deaths, 50-state study says

[bails329]

Anybody see this idiocy yet? AP/Chicago - fictional news.

http://news.yahoo.com/more-gun-laws-fewer-deaths-134804944.html

 

[l730dc]

"compiled by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a well-known gun control advocacy group.*"

 

[Shift]

What a joke

I would really like to see this study, are these total gun deaths or a rate per capita. Of course a state like Texas would have more total deaths than a state like Delaware or Rhode Island

 

[DC-W]

Correlation does not equal causation.
MD has plenty of gun laws, and yet hundreds of people die and are injured by intentional shootings every year.

 

[occbrian]

Number of gun laws has nothing to do with the level of restriction.

This study is a piece of trash.

 

[jrumann59]

they are using suicide as the bolster point.

 

[jonnyl]

Also note the things that aren't said. For example "blah blah blah...results in lower rates of gun suicide...blah blah..."

Usually when I see comments like this my first question is "Did overall suicides go down?"

When looking at countries that banned or greatly restricted gun access/ownership, the level of suicides usually remains the same meaning that there is about a 100% substitution regarding method. Even though they could technically say "the rate of suicide by gun went down".

 

[press1280]

Also note the things that aren't said. For example "blah blah blah...results in lower rates of gun suicide...blah blah..."

Usually when I see comments like this my first question is "Did overall suicides go down?"

When looking at countries that banned or greatly restricted gun access/ownership, the level of suicides usually remains the same meaning that there is about a 100% substitution regarding method. Even though they could technically say "the rate of suicide by gun went down".

Right-just notice how everything is framed "gun violence" by the media and the Bradys, as if it's not as bad to be stabbed or beaten to death.

 

[FrankZ]

Right-just notice how everything is framed "gun violence" by the media and the Bradys, as if it's not as bad to be stabbed or beaten to death.

Calling it "gun violence" is used to give guns volition and as such make them dangerous and scary. If your gun had the ability and desire to leave your house on its own and kill people it would be dangerous, which is the image they wish to portray.

There is such things as gang violence and male violence. There is no such thing as bat violence, golf club violence, pillow violence or gun violence.

Guns are tools, they can be used for violence just like bats, golf clubs and pillows.

 

[John Go]

Another view of that same study.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...arms-laws-do-nothing-to-prevent-homicides.php

 

[aireyc]

I honestly don't care if it only took one gun law to stop all gun-related deaths, if that law denies me the right to own a gun, I have a problem with it. These anti-gun people have established the false premise that all gun deaths must be stopped, no matter what that means for the rest of society.

A bulk of the gun crime in the US is either suicide or related to gangs. Sure, I could die as a result of gunfire, and it's also possible that I could get hit by a bus tomorrow, but I at least can take basic measures to minimize the possibility of either of those things happening. Get rid of the guns, though, and a subsequent increase in violent crime could be a lot more difficult to avoid. No thanks.

 

[Boom Boom]

Quite ironic how the "story" comes from Chicago. It's not like Chicago has strict gun laws accompanied by more gun violence than entire countries.

 

[nedsurf]

The researcher's approach in his own words: "Our motivation was really to understand what are the interventions that can be done to reduce firearm mortality," said Dr. Eric Fleegler, the study's lead author and an emergency department pediatrician and researcher at Boston Children's Hospital.

So why does he go about looking at the sheer number of gun laws? Does that really address the question the researcher posed? Whats the point of that? Why does he rely on the Brady campaign to define Gun laws for him instead of a more balanced source? Why would he leave out city level laws and gun deaths in the group? Isn't that where about 50% of gun homicides happen? What is the methodological reason to evenly divide the states into four equal groups? Does that division skew the data? Isn't this issue a little more nuanced than four divisions.
Please note that the last TEN paragraphs of the article narrow the bold claim made in the title and the first paragraphs. Sensation journalism relying on the fact most readers don't get past the headline and first few sentences.

We must not forget, He is doing it for the Chilllldreeeen!...or his CV.

 

[Hal3]

"compiled by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a well-known gun control advocacy group.*"

This by itself is a major reason to throw out this whole article. The Brady campaign has been known to deliberately distort the facts and thus doesnt count for anything.

 

[SilverBulletZ06]

This by itself is a major reason to throw out this whole article. The Brady campaign has been known to deliberately distort the facts and thus doesnt count for anything.

NAAMBLA says that sex with kids helps their self esteem. How many people would take that seriously.

 

[LocknLoad]

What a piece of trash! Chicago is a perfect example. Unconstitutional laws are not laws.

 

[john_bud]

NAAMBLA says that sex with kids helps their self esteem. How many people would take that seriously.

The dems would if they were a largervoting block and or donated 100,000,000 a year in bundled funds to the party