Study: Tough gun laws keep more hands off the trigger

[SZonian]

Debate over the value of tough state gun control laws has reached a fever pitch following last month's deadly shooting of 17 people at a Florida high school.

Now, results from a new study indicate that such laws are potentially so effective they can prevent firearm-related murders on a regional basis, with the benefits extending into other nearby states that have more lax laws on the books.

States with strong firearm laws have overall lower rates of gun-related murder and suicide, according to the county-by-county analysis.

But counties in states with weak gun laws also appear to gain some protection from gun violence if they are located next to states with stronger laws, researchers reported.

"We found that in states with relatively lenient laws, if the surrounding states had stricter laws we found a lower firearm homicide rate," said study author Dr. Elinore Kaufman, a trauma surgeon at New York-Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York City. "This indicates there might be a protective effect that extends across state lines."

Emphasis mine.
[excerpted]
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2018/03/05/Study-Tough-gun-laws-keep-more-hands-off-the-trigger/4001520306246/

[Bigun]

100% USDA Choice Bovine fecal matter!

[txradioguy]

The only fingers they end up keeping off the trigger are law abiding citizens.  They don't stop the thugs and just leave us vulnerable to crime.

[Jazzhead]

100% USDA Choice Bovine fecal matter!

Your typical reaction to common sense.

[txradioguy]

Your typical reaction to common sense.

There is no common sense in any of these feel good do nothing proposals.

[Cyber Liberty]

Your typical reaction to common sense.

This crap looks like "common sense" to you?  Here, I have a set of these babies, too, I keep them handy for any random post I see from you:   

[Polly Ticks]

States with strong firearm laws have overall lower rates of gun-related murder and suicide, according to the county-by-county analysis.

Those are two entirely different things, and a blatant attempt to skew the numbers.

[INVAR]

These gun-studies are just like Global Warming bullshit data foisted upon the world by Activists using it to impose totalitarianism.

It's pure bullshit.  Not one more gun law will we abide, anymore than those with pick up trucks will trade them in for electric cars should the state mandate it.

[Jazzhead]

Those are two entirely different things, and a blatant attempt to skew the numbers.

Dead is dead.   

[Polly Ticks]

Dead is dead.

Having sat on an attempted murder jury this past week, I can guarantee you that the conversation in the jury room would have been vastly different had the felon turned the gun on himself rather than on the man sweeping the convenience store floor.

[Cyber Liberty]

Having sat on an attempted murder jury this past week, I can guarantee you that the conversation in the jury room would have been vastly different had the felon turned the gun on himself rather than on the man sweeping the convenience store floor.

Don't bother, he'll tell you he knows more about the case than you do.

[txradioguy]

Dead is dead.

And stupid is forever.

[Jazzhead]

No attempts to refute the study, I see.  Just name-calling and epithets.   

[thackney]

Let me see the results of the study that looks at murder, suicide and violent crime in general, rather than just selective targeting of gun-related results.

People are still violent and crazy at times.  Focusing on one of the tools used rather than the root problem is like preventing speeding by outlawing Buicks.

[txradioguy]

No attempts to refute the study, I see.  Just name-calling and epithets.   

You mean like calling someone a punk?

Honestly it's no use trying to have an honest debate or discussion about guns or most things important to Conservatives because it's more important you lecture us like we're one of your law classes than have an open mind or see another point of view other than your own...of which you think WAAY too highly of.

@Polly Ticks tried to rightfully point out that things like suicide and instances where it's an officer involved shooting skew the numbers.

And the best and most educated answer you could come back with was:

Dead is dead

Then you have the unmitigated gall to try and finger wag at others in here about "Just name-calling and epithets"??


Spare us your sanctimonious crap.

[thackney]

Dead is dead.

Agreed, so why have a study only on gun related murder and suicide instead of all murder and suicide?

The goal should be less deaths, not less deaths by one select method without regard to the rest.

[txradioguy]

Agreed, so why have a study only on gun related murder and suicide instead of all murder and suicide?

The goal should be less deaths, not less deaths by one select method without regard to the rest.

@thackney the problem is the people writing these studies have an agenda...and it's not to put out truthful information to the public..but then you and I both know that already.

[Jazzhead]

@thackney the problem is the people writing these studies have an agenda...and it's not to put out truthful information to the public..but then you and I both know that already.

The study was authored by a trauma surgeon at New York Presbyterian Medical Center.   What kind of study will you approve of as not motivated by an "agenda"?   

[Jazzhead]

Agreed, so why have a study only on gun related murder and suicide instead of all murder and suicide?

The goal should be less deaths, not less deaths by one select method without regard to the rest.

Because the purpose of the study was to examine the effects of gun laws on gun related deaths?    The point is to determine whether and what types of gun laws are likely to be efficacious - capable of producing the desired effect - that is, a reduction in gun-related deaths.

Of course "the goal should be less deaths".  I wish we were all working for that goal,  instead of protecting our own "agendas".  But the goal of the study is more narrow, as noted above. 

[Free Vulcan]

Dead is dead.

Yep, and let lump whatever we got to into that soup to get the conclusions we want. Except as already said, if dead is dead then let's look at all causes of death, if we really want to move that needle.

The problem here is that they're playing fast and loose with the numbers, and drawing conclusions drawn from very loose correlations that completely break down on examination.

[txradioguy]

From 2007:

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.” Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is “no.” And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists – Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser – in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland’s murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study’s authors write in the report:

If the mantra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death” were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct – that “gun don’t kill people, people do” – the study also shows that Russia’s murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.
The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun – a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite – but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:

[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 – emphases in original)

http://www.theacru.org/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

[thackney]

Because the purpose of the study was to examine the effects of gun laws on gun related deaths?    The point is to determine whether and what types of gun laws are likely to be efficacious - capable of producing the desired effect - that is, a reduction in gun-related deaths.

Of course "the goal should be less deaths".  I wish we were all working for that goal,  instead of protecting our own "agendas". But the goal of the study is more narrow, as noted above.

Then it is only pushing an agenda and not concerned with actual safety of people, ie less deaths and less crimes, rather than less by a single type of tool.

[roamer_1]

Of course "the goal should be less deaths".  I wish we were all working for that goal,  instead of protecting our own "agendas".

You are the only one here pushing an agenda.

[Cyber Liberty]

From 2007:

...

The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun – a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite – but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:

http://www.theacru.org/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

IOW, in short lingo, "Dead is dead?"   

[Jazzhead]

You are the only one here pushing an agenda.