Firearm Deaths Lower Where Gun Laws Strong

Medpage Today ^ | 3-7-13 | John Gever

[Pharmboy]

The study found that a higher number of firearm laws in a state is associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually.

However the study could not determine cause-and-effect relationships because of limitations inherent in the study design.

States with more intensive regulation of gun ownership, sales, and storage tended to have lower rates of gun-related fatalities, researchers said.

With state-level gun laws from 2007 to 2010 rated on a "legislative strength" scale, states in the top quartile had gun-related fatality rates more than 40% lower than states in the bottom quartile (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.92), according to Eric Fleegler, MD, MPH, of Boston Children's Hospital, and colleagues.

The lower rates applied both to homicides and suicides, they reported online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

However, the researchers cautioned that their "ecological and cross-sectional" study design cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship between gun regulation and deaths.

"Further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association," they wrote.

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.

"In the end, [the study authors] provide no firm guidance," wrote Wintemute. "Do the laws work, or not? If so, which ones? Should policymakers enact the entire package? Some part? Which part?"

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

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.

[Wonder Warthog]

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.

[thackney]

The important statistic is overall deaths and violent crime, not just deaths specific to firearms.

[lentulusgracchus]

(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.

[Smokin' Joe]

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.

[willyd]

I would like to see the gun crime rate as it correlates to the Democratic population of a city and see if we can get to the bottom of this.

[Smokin' Joe]

Make that the crime rate, broken down by type of crime and the weapon used if any. The gun didn’t do the crime, it was just the tool that perp used.