I post this for two reasons: 1)to alert all to this article in the medical realm that may transfer to the consumer media and 2) to gather as much refutation as possible in one place from Freepers.
posted on 03/07/2013 4:43:26 AM PST
He also pointed to other flaws in the study design, including its reliance on anti-gun organizations for data on state gun legislation.
Well, there you have it.
posted on 03/07/2013 4:49:48 AM PST
(_.. ._. .. _. _._ __ ___ ._. . ___ ..._ ._ ._.. _ .. _. .)
I believe that studies conducted by John Lott directly refute this article, but someone should take a closer look.
This “news” was already announced on my local stations this morning. Soros’ organizations must have been working all night to make sure this fluff (read: BS) made it down to the local level this morning.
posted on 03/07/2013 4:53:16 AM PST
(If Barack has a memory like a steel trap, why can't he remember what the Constitution says?)
To: Pharmboy; All
The study is refuted simply by its use of the propaganda metric “firearm deaths”. It is overall deaths that are important, not how they occur.
As an example, millions die each year in hospitals. We can eliminate all hospital deaths by banning hospitals.
See how this is false logic?
posted on 03/07/2013 4:56:19 AM PST
(The MSM must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
This happened once before. However, deaths from overwork, disease, starvation and zklyon B increased significantly.
Generally, based on US and international experience, stronger gun laws are also associated with higher rates of non-gun violence and of overall violence, including homicide. In effect, life becomes harder and more dangerous for potential victims when ownership and access to guns is restricted because weaker and isolated people are then more readily preyed upon by criminals.
Moreover, the study does not account for the effect of concealed carry laws, which significantly reduce violent crime. In a back of the envelope analysis I did as to Florida, I found that official crime statistics suggested that, after Florida adopted concealed carry, the rate of violent crime declined by a about a third more than the general national rate of decline.
What do the good citizens of Chicago have to say?
posted on 03/07/2013 5:18:05 AM PST
by Iron Munro
(I miss America, don't you?)
It's a good thing 2A doesn't care about statistics.
People - don't get sucked into arguing these kinds of things.
Statistics don't matter. Polls don't matter, sob stories don't matter.
Our right to firearms is absolute and not negotiable.
If you accept an argument like this, then the only place to go is what number is "acceptable".
Don't go there.
posted on 03/07/2013 5:24:56 AM PST
(Vivere liberi aut mori)
Many of the states with both minimal gun control laws and high rates of gun crime are in the SE.
They all share something else that is clearly a greater factor in rates of gun crime, that these objective scientists seemed to overlook.
I wonder if Dr. Fleegler considered Oakland, CA in his study?
I would have cited a number of other cities like Detroit, but their population is decreasing so rapidly, they won't have anyone left to turn out the lights.
posted on 03/07/2013 5:29:36 AM PST
by M Kehoe
I remember back in 1968, anti-gun researchers found more people were killed in the South.
George Wallace created a firestorm when he said the reason was “all those darkies killing each other”.
Now, today, how bad is gun free Chicago.
posted on 03/07/2013 7:04:25 AM PST
by Ruy Dias de Bivar
(CLICK my name. See the murals before they are painted over! POTEET THEATER in OKC!)
Totally ridiculous talking point. The thing that matters is not “FIREARMS Deaths”, it is TOTAL deaths by violence. Best data is that when firearms usage by honest citizens is forcibly reduced, TOTAL deaths go UP.
Deat is dead, whether by firearm, baseball bat, rope, or fists and feet.
The important statistic is overall deaths and violent crime, not just deaths specific to firearms.
posted on 03/07/2013 8:33:15 AM PST
(life is fragile, handle with prayer)
(Article) In an accompanying commentary, Garen Wintemute, MD, MPH, of the University of California Davis, also stressed the study's methodological limitations. "Ecological studies of association are inherently weak ... [and] correlation does not imply causation," he wrote. He also pointed to other flaws in the study design, including its reliance on anti-gun organizations for data on state gun legislation.
Johns Hopkins University has done "study" work for a number of gun-grabbing NGO's for 20+ years now, sifting data to find statistical correlations that can enable politically useful statements which are then dispensed to Media by the grabber NGO's.
This isn't about "studying" anything or building an argument on solid foundations. It's about supplying one-liners to demagogues, and Johns Hopkins has found it a worthwhile sideline to their more serious research.
This is a Right, so it really shouldn't matter. Compare the firearm murder rate in North Dakota with Washington, DC. Roughly the same sized populations, with North Dakota's firearm laws at roughly the opposite end of the spectrum from D.C.
That data alone would refute the author's conclusions.
posted on 03/07/2013 9:07:15 PM PST
by Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson