Slashdot Mirror


Study Finds 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90% (meta.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The study, published in The Lancet, used a cross-sectional, state-level dataset relating to a host of topics associated with firearm mortality including gun ownership and even unemployment from across the U.S. to examine the relationship between recorded gun deaths and gun-control legislation. The study found that some laws, such as those that restrict gun access to children through locks and age restrictions, were simply ineffective while others, such as the stand-your-ground law that allows individuals to use deadly force in self-defense, actually increase gun-related deaths significantly. According to the study's model, a federal law expanding background checks for all gun purchases could reduce the national gun death rate by 57%, lowering it from 10.35 to 4.46 per 100,000 people while background checks for all ammunition purchases could lower the rate by 81% to 1.99 per 100,000 and firearm identification could reduce it by 83% to 1.81 per 100,000. If the federal government implemented all three laws, the scholars predict that the overall national rate of firearm deaths would drop by over 90% to 0.16 per 100,000.

10 of 819 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah, um, not so much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    'Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for Gun Policy and Research, told the Washington Post, “Briefly, this is not a credible study and no cause and effect inferences should be made from it.” Webster is later quoted, stating, “What I find both puzzling and troubling is this very flawed piece of research is published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals around Something went awry here, and it harms public trust.”'

    1. Re:Yeah, um, not so much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Gosh, I'd love to find the link and read the whole context of your Daniel Webster quote. I tried to googled it, and my meager search skills were unable to locate the source

      I was interested too and I found it with DuckDuckGo. You can read the quote on an NRA website and in the Washington Post.

    2. Re:Yeah, um, not so much by Nonesuch · · Score: 5, Informative

      Gosh, I'd love to find the link and read the whole context of your Daniel Webster quote. I tried to googled it, and my meager search skills were unable to locate the source.

      And, given the stuff Webster has written elsewhere about the public health approach, see http://annals.org/article.aspx... this quote doesn't really sound like Webster...

      As you've noted, Mr. Webster runs the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for Gun Policy and Research; his job is basically to fund and promote anti-gun research, so when Daniel Webster comes out and says a pro-gun-control study is flawed you know it has got to have some serious problems! Looks like the majority of the Daniel Webster quotes indicting Bindu Kalesan's study are from an email exchange with the Washington Post.

  2. And STILL even that wouldn't prevent the deaths by raymorris · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a very clear example why this (and most) anti-gun "studies" are silly, one large category is suicides. They measured suicides that used guns before a ban/law to how many suicides used guns afterwards. They found that people who kill themselves are less likely to use a gun if guns are less available. What they didn't find was a drastic change in the number of suicides. Still the same number of people dead. They pretend that if someone dies jumping off a bridge, that's fine, suicide is only bad if they use a gun.

    This same fundamental error (trick?) is used in most anti-gun studies, they say "gun deaths" and "gun crime". Comparing murder, rape, robbery, and total violent crime for the ten years before the UK gun ban vs the ten years after, we find that murder, rape, robbery, and total violent crime all doubled immediately after the ban. The kooks publish studies saying it's great that there were fewer "gun murders". According to their reasoning, it's better to have two people stabbed to death than one person shot.

    1. Re:And STILL even that wouldn't prevent the deaths by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1, Informative

      Indeed. It's especially wonderful when you see them comparing countries by gun murder rate. No shit Britain has a gun murder rate that's like...5% of ours, but their plain old murder rate is a lot closer, what does THAT tell you?

      WTF are you smoking and can I have some?
      http://www.nationmaster.com/co...

      UK murder rate per million: 11.68. USA 42.01.
      That's a 4X per capita difference. In numerical terms, the cost of the 4X higher murder rate in the USA costs many more lives. UK: 722, USA, 12,996.
      So we might infer that if the 4X difference in murder rate is due to the greater gun control in the UK, that same gun control in the US would yield 9747 fewer murder victims.

      You might want to consider what your motivations are for making those lies.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  3. And already published rebuttals... by Mal-2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Already the objections are being raised in print, so it's not like others are overlooking this study.

    Of course, the eventual corrections or retraction won't get anywhere near the press the original study did. It never does.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  4. Re:So the question is what wiil happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    You REALLY want to reduce Gun Crime?

    Prohibit minorities from owning guns. Sure...not PC, people will call racist, but the fact is the matter they are the primary perpetrators.

    Empirical data is not racist.

  5. Re:I know how to reduce firearm deaths by 99.9% by kenwd0elq · · Score: 3, Informative

    There are a couple of dozen gunfighters' graves on Boot Hill - in about 40 years. Gunfights were a rare occurrence; that's what made them stand out in history.

  6. Re:I know how to reduce firearm deaths by 99.9% by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Maybe you'd like to click some of these links - https://www.google.com/search?...

    Authors of trash fiction and Hollywood have instilled the belief that homicide rates were extremely high in the "wild, wild west". Facts are, there have been hundreds of gunfights in Hollywood, for every real-life gunfight in the American west.

    In modern day Hollywood, there have been billions of deaths in space by violence. In reality, how many humans have died in space? And, none by violence.

    http://libertarianstandard.com...

    In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
    In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.
    Zooming forward over a century to 2007, a quick look at Uniform Crime Report statistics shows us the following regarding the aforementioned gun control “paradise” cities of the east:

    DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)
    New York – 494 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)
    Baltimore – 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)
    Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  7. Re:I guess I'll re-iterate about Jeffries by dywolf · · Score: 4, Informative

    only 5 of which were killed by a gun.
    nearly every spree killing before 1996 was a shooting.
    only one after involved a gun. the rest were arson, or knives.
    and each individual incident before 1996 had more fatalities than the incidents that followed 1996

    seems like an improvement to me.

    nice try.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.