http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-guns-20140121,0,1179362.story
How much did THIS study cost ?
I quit reading at University of California, San Francisco
How...convenient!
“...twice as likely to be the victim of a homicide...”
Yeah, but before they were like 100x more likely; that’s why they bought the gun
"Even those who muster these findings in support of gun limits acknowledge they fail to draw a causal link between gun ownership and victimization.
The 14 studies considered by the UC San Francisco team were observational studies, and they could not make a causal link either."
“Pooling results from 15 investigations”
I am a data analyst, 15 investigations is a very small data pool. Sounds like they stopped when they got the results they wanted to see. Thats an old data trick...........................nice try though!
Explain the Japanese suicide and homicide rates in a complete gun control environment, lefties.
Gun owners are also a thousand times more likely to commit tyrant-a-cide.
“the first systematic review of its kind—from the University of California, San Francisco, “
stopped right there.
Meanwhile, researchers have found that people with ladders are at an increased risk of falls. In a separate study, it was determined that cuts are more common among households with knives . . .
Elaboration on the obvious . . .
Do I need to read any further than that?
If this study was done by the left, and who else would do it, you can do away with the suicide part altogether. Why are they even concerned with it when they want to kill old people and babies and backed Cavorkian’s quest. I would think that if anyone wanted to commit suicide the left would GIVE them a gun for free.
On the other hand, people in New York who have thwarted the law and have acquired access to guns probably are more likely to both perpetrate crime as well as be a victim.
People are willing to accept risks which they assume and control. A person could go skydiving on Sunday and complain all day long that his employer is exposing him to cleaning solvents on Monday.
So, I am willing to accept the risk that I create for myself by choosing to have a gun. Managing and minimizing that risk is something I enjoy as a responsible adult. But I am not willing to accept the risk that comes from being unarmed and at the mercy of those who might wish to do me harm.
At least this article makes it somewhat clear that the deaths from suicide by one’s own gun dwarf the deaths from homicide by one’s own gun. That comes down to how one feels about the individual’s right to end it all.
(Most Libs would outlaw suicide because it is illegal to destroy government property...)
In related news, men who are married are far more likely to be stabbed by their spouse than those who remain single.
These bogus studies make me want to shoot myself! No... Wait.....
"without access" means ZERO ACCESS
"without: - out of the limits of; beyond" Webster`s Dict.
stupoid illogical statement:
"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"
\access "www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/access
access ="a way of getting near, at, or to something or someone. : a way of being able to use or get something." : Webster
if the guy has no way to get a gun, it is physically impossible for him to shoot himself or anyone else.
Since this guy`s reasoning is illogical and mathematically impossible I will correct his stupoid statement:
"Those with the ability to get to a gun are infinitely as likely to commit suicide and infinitesimally as likely to be the victim of a homicide than people without access" because "without access" means a person having no gun in his hand cannot pull the trigger, you idiot.
ZERO CHANCE = if"NO ACCESS" = ZERO ACCESS =WITHOUT ACCESS
This guy is a liar and moron at the same time- incredible!
more bs commie progaganda. Liars do figure.
Blacks Suffer Disproportionate Share of Firearm Homicide Deaths