Posted on 01/21/2014 10:46:44 AM PST by lowbridge
Now, a new meta-analysis of gun research—the first systematic review of its kind—from the University of California, San Francisco, published in Annals of Internal Medicine today, has seemingly put an end to the debate over safety, at least in terms of suicide and homicide. Pooling results from 15 investigations, researchers found that a person with access to a gun is unequivocally less safe in terms of intentional death. Those with the ability to get to a gun are three times as likely to commit suicide and twice as likely to be the victim of a homicide than people without access.
Previous studies that include population level estimates have pegged the risks as even higher.
Guns are the most popular and effective method of killing—both of oneself and of others. Around 31,000die by the gun annually and gun deaths make up over half of all completed suicides and over two-thirds of all homicides.
The study found that access to guns had a different effect on men and women. Men were nearly four times more likely to commit suicide than when firearms were not accessible, while women were almost three times more likely to be victims of homicide. And while men make up over three quarters of suicides and homicides overall, women with firearm access are more than twice as likely to be a victim of homicide than a man with gun access, mainly because of the increased threat of domestic violence.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
I call BS, bull, PS, Pig, HS, Horse, and any other kind of $hitt you can think of on this report.
If they wanted to be honest with these numbers they have to start out MURDERS, and not homicides. What you have here is statistical LIARS, people who manipulate numbers to come up with false facts and lies.
Study Finds _____________ (whatever they want it to find)
Keep in mind that "Homicide" does NOT mean "Murder".
Homicide just means a death caused bu the actions of another person.
If a SWAT sniper shoots a hostage taker... homicide.
A home owner shoots a home invader... homicide.
A woman shoots a man attempting to rape her... homicide.
A thug is shot when he tries to carjack a gun owner... homicide.
So when when liberals use the word "homicide" in an evil gun article it is to inflate the numbers and make people think the homicides are all murders.
The UCSF people should conduct a “similar” study about people who committed suicide using tall buildings and high bridges and cliffs. Those who committed suicide by those means, surely had access to those means of suicide. Which came first? The means or the desire to commit suicide.
It’s quite possible that many of those who decided to commit suicide by using guns, didn’t already have a gun, and just decided to go find one to get the “job done”. Does the study mention that gaining access to the means might come after the decision?
I’d like to see the study broken down by age, race and geography.
I think the numbers would vary greatly.
Gang bangers have guns and are very likely to get shot. Farmers have guns and are very unlikely to get shot. Probably lower than non gun owners stuck in the democrat controlled cities.
Our local range will not let you join and rent a weapon the same day. Too many cheap SOBs that won’t even buy a gun to kill themselves, they’d pay the day rate then off themselves in the bathroom, happened more than once.
But there are more deaths from the medical version of a coat hanger than from guns in this country.
We better not force people to have guns, then.
“A new meta-analysis of gun research unequivocally reveals that proximity to a lethal weapon creates a greater likelihood of bodily harm and death.”
“Now, a new meta-analysis of gun research—the first systematic review of its kind—from the University of California, San Francisco, published in Annals of Internal Medicine today, has seemingly put an end to the debate over safety, at least in terms of suicide and homicide.”
“What can no longer be argued is that a firearm puts the owner and everyone else in the home at risk.”
Interesting how many times they pound home their message that the results are “unequivocal”, “the debate is over”, and the results can not be argued.
And yes, I just made that up, but the truth is probably not far off.
You are closer than you think. This study just averages together a bunch of other studies, as if that would increase the accuracy or correctness of the original studies. I haven't gone through each of the original studies used, but they are similar to the notorious Harvard study where the researchers asserted that the presence of a firearm in a house increased the resident's risk of death from homicide by firearm.
In that study there was an even stronger correlation - namely that renting instead of owning your residence increased your risk of death from homicide by firearm.
Needless to say the study's authors don't advocate restricting access to rental housing. What their study confuses is correlation and causation for the general population.
Apart from the other methodological faults in the Harvard study, in the already selected population of people who are killed in their homes, there may be a correlation between firearms ownership and the overall lifestyle and personality of the residents. Put simply, a person is more likely to die from being shot in their house if they feel they are likely to need to defend themself against, for example, a home invasion by the other drug gang members they do business with. And, for a woman, if her boyfriend is a pretty shady character, drinks a lot, owns a gun, and lives in a bad neighborhood, then she is probably are more at risk of violence than a typical female. Particularly if the woman and her boyfriend rent instead of own the property.
The anti-gun researchers conflate causal factors with correlated characteristics of a group of people. By the logic of the anti-gun researchers denim jackets and Harley Davidson motorcycles are the cause of bar fights.
How about a study that shows that people in California are more likely to be killed by an illegal alien than people in Montana?
Makes just as much sense as this study does. And would cost about $1.20 plus postage to do.
Meta data studies are utter nonsense and are no taken seriously by any medical or scientific journal that is peer reviewed,
You can do metadata on anything and come up with whatever you want.
For example
There has been an increase of zombie movies
the average weight of a American has increased
Hence zombie movies cause obesity
On the suicides... I assume that in 100% of the gun suicide cases, they assumed the victim had access to a gun... regardless of the source of the gun (belonged to someone else, owned illegally, etc.). Whereas the sample of folks who have NOT committed suicide... do they have "access" to a gun only if they legally own one (or admit to having one)?
The statistics would only be valid if "access to a gun" were defined the same for suicide victims as people who don't shoot themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.