Slashdot Mirror

Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault
Branas et al., 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099,
American Journal of Public Health.

Abstract:

Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.

Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P<.05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P<.05).

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

Huh. I guess fact-checking is important.

Actually, studies do show a definite increase in suicide with gun ownership (seems obvious). Some studies have found the likelihood of being murdered also increases. I'm not aware of any studies that indicate owning a gun in the US actually improves ones safety, but I don't really care enough to do that much research.

Citations:
The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide.
Does Owning a Firearm Increase or Decrease the Risk of Death?

Owning a gun doesn't change the likelihood of a home invasion. It does change the likelihood of mistaking oneself for Jack Bauer while the sad truth is that most of us are more akin to Gomer Pile.

Why would this be a surprise? Our society is so out of balance that even though we live in a constant state of excess, people get sick from vitamin C deficiency. Here's a link specifically about the United States, which may not be representative of other modern countries. And if we can be deficient in one vitamin due to our high-calorie, low-nutrient diet, why not another?

I'll stick to searching 'pubmed.org' for "milk, osteoporosis" and seeing the randomized control trials, thank you.

Culling out publications from obviously biases sources such as the "Journal of Dairy Science", can you find a randomized controled trial showing that unfortified dairy products have a protective impact on osteoporosis?

Such a result would be surprising given the findings of a study published in the American Journal of Public Health which followed 77,761 women and found no protective impact of dairy products on fractures.

A PubMed search will find this meta-analyis from Pediatrics on osteoporosis, or this article on the increased risk for prostate cancer from dairy consumption from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. This study from the same journal notes "Over the years, doubts have arisen concerning the use of milk as a calcium source in the prevention of osteoporosis, particularly because of potential offsetting effects of protein and phosphorus." This letter in that same journal points out that living in countries with a high dairy consumption is a risk factor for osteoporosis.

This page from PCRM give citations to several studies on the health impact of dairy consumption.

See also this analysis in Public Health Nutrition which states, "Regarding associations relating the consumption of dairy products with chronic diseases, in Western societies consumption of dairy products has traditionally been linked to cardiovascular diseases (arteriosclerosis) and osteoporosis owing to their saturated fatty acids and calcium content, respectively. While the association between saturated fat intake and risk of arteriosclerosis is well established, the association between calcium from dairy products, together with vitamin D, and osteoporosis is less clear."

Work NEVER killed anyone

Two words: Yeah and right.

Amen. Just yesterday I saw a piece on BBC World News about vitamin D deficiency (sorry, the BBC News web link actually tells enough information to be useful). The TV spot didn't even tell how much vitamin D seems to cut the risk of certain cancers in half! By contrast, the UCSD press release had plenty of useful information. What irks me is that they still send you on a wild goose chase to find a summary written by the scientists. I think the problem is not only editors wanting tabloid content, but in these cases, a public relations department whose job is perceived as being to put the best possible spin on things for the organization. Regardless of the quality of the "reporting" by the PR department, the actual reporters are going to have to get more information, and the media contact is the PR person who wrote the article, not a scientist. The reporters also talk to someone else for a differing opinion and try to show the "debate" whether there is one or not. They may then find some expert in the subject who hasn't read the study, and it goes downhill from there. It's a bad game of telephone mixed up with putting someone on the spot about a paper they haven't seen: a recipe for disaster.

In your own message, you both contradict yourself and admit ignorance.

Did this happen? Not really. I never saw any statistics on the number on smokers, so cannot say whether the number ever dropped. However, the revenue from cigarette tax actually dropped!

So you don't know whether it reduced smoking or not? I'll tell you then: It did.

The drop in revenue from cigarette taxes cannot be intrepreted as a "failure" of the program- it's a mark of success. Such a drop should be the final, victorious stage of any tax that was intended as a behavioral modifier, not a revenue enhancer.

That Cato & some Swedish politicians used revenue gain as their success criteria shows just how wrong their starting perspective was. The tax dollars you collect is not supposed to be the point!

Often governments will subvert the intent of "sin-tax" programs to boost revenue, rather than protect the public. That puts them in the dubious position of depending on continuation and growth in bad actions for their own profit.

in this Cato paper Patrick Fleenor takes a look at cigarette taxes in New York, which are higher than they are in many of the nearby states. He concludes that higher taxes

A biased group like Cato does not ever "conclude" anything. They predetermined the results before doing the research- they will ALWAYS say that taxes are bad, no matter what.

If you'd like a more scientific view of the issues, read any journal like Nicotine and Tobacco or the Journal of Public Health. You'll have to use a library's password to read the articles, but I can summarize in four words: "Cigarette taxes reduce smoking"