Study by Doctors determines 3 new gun laws would eliminate 83% of US gun deaths

[PaulB47]

But that is how science works. You dont trust one study, you like to see study after study from completely different people come to the same conclusions using unbiased methods before using it to make big decisions.

Not really. Anything having to do with social science is typically a joke in the scientific community (real science, as in physics or biology).

I used to read the anti-gun studies for "fun", and even a lay person could see the problems with them. Murder rates depend on a vast number of variables, and anyone who thinks he can reduce them more than a bit by fiddling with gun laws is just flat-out lying or ignorant. And that's ignoring the potential for gun laws to facilitate enslaving the population; slavery causes a high death rate too, something never factored into these studies.

But who is paying attention to this crap any more? Maybe what motivates these studies is attracting grants from the Bloombergs of the world.

 

[kilimanjaro]

When my mother was an ER nurse, she came home one morning after the usual weekend crises in the hospital, and related that a Doctor said if you just moved paydays to Monday instead of Fridays, the murder rate would drop to nearly nothing.

Everyone acts as if guns are the catalyst for violence, the reality is there is an entire range of issues that synergize into the problem.

 

[Larrytpdx]

Fortunately there is NO bias in this study.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Honestly, the statistically analysis is beyond me and I would normally assume the peer review included assessment of this before publication. My best gestimate is that it wont ever account for every variable

It is beyond you by design. When you read that analysis breakdown they did not account for ANY factors outside of doing simple comparisons based on population vs. occurrence. They simply used convoluted math to make it seem like all numbers are equal and that violence is solely dependent on population...as if all people offend at the same rate as long as you take into account the number of crimes per state. In other words, they cooked the books and did none of the work necessary to determine any real facts.

By their own findings they would have to admit that the states they used that do have these laws would have crime rates many times higher than the national average without these laws. In fact, they would have crime rates higher than even the highest current crime rates in any given city. For example, if these laws are stopping 83% of gun murders in IL and their current rate per 1000 is 2.8 then without these laws their murder rate would be approx 14.0 per 1000. In AZ, which has none of these laws, the murder rate is only 3.6 (with a much smaller population overall).

Also, they could have easily verified their findings by doing a case study of murders in any given state and finding how many murders were committed with legally purchased guns and then see how many of those murders would have been stopped by any of these laws. Since suicide makes up the majority of gun deaths they would have to be able to show that at least 75% of all suicides and then ALL murders would have been stopped by these laws.

Here is a spoiler for you. That is not even possible mathematically. That is why they avoided simple math and actual study because their claims are unsupportable.

 

[Stomper]

My grampy had an expression for stuff like this, "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull sheite".

(I suspect he was a fan of W.C. Fields)

 

[RB87]

Present company excluded, I am curious why these MDs don't address the statistics related to medical mistakes and hospital born infections leading to the death of the patient unrelated to the original condition. Statistics that make firearms related fatalities pale in comparison.

Hospital Acquired Infections are the 4th leading cause of patient deaths, killing 270 people per day in the USA.
<broken link removed>

Edited to add:
For the record, that is ~8200 people per month. The average of all mass shootings in the USA since 1982 is ~1.5 per month

This is one of my favorite points to make with medical experts.

Another is, cholesterol is a killer! Don't use saturated fats, use trans fats!

Twenty years later.... Ban trans-fats! Just eat carbs and take your statins!

Why are people so fat still!? Let's just blame sedentary lifestyles! Holy SCIENCE! could never be wrong.

Lets demand that people get firearms training to own a gun! Background checks for all! But let's promote affirmative action in medical schools based not on ability but on sex or race.

When you have surgeons literally come up to you before you go under, confirm what they're going to be doing to you and write on your body where they're supposed to cut... well, it doesn't inspire confidence but a realization of how bad things can and have gotten. Long story short, I've since stopped taking most doctor's and so called medical experts seriously on stuff like this, especially when they won't even honestly analyze their own industry's problems. Obamacare will save us all! Trust us, we're experts!

 

[308]

This is one of my favorite points to make with medical experts.

Another is, cholesterol is a killer! Don't use saturated fats, use trans fats!

Twenty years later.... Ban trans-fats! Just eat carbs and take your statins!

Why are people so fat still!? Let's just blame sedentary lifestyles! Holy SCIENCE! could never be wrong.

Lets demand that people get firearms training to own a gun! Background checks for all! But let's promote affirmative action in medical schools based not on ability but on sex or race.

When you have surgeons literally come up to you before you go under, confirm what they're going to be doing to you and write on your body where they're supposed to cut... well, it doesn't inspire confidence but a realization of how bad things can and have gotten. Long story short, I've since stopped taking most doctor's and so called medical experts seriously on stuff like this, especially when they won't even honestly analyze their own industry's problems. Obamacare will save us all! Trust us, we're experts!

Not ragging on Doctors because mine is a hoot...we have q great time talking whenever I see him, but great as he is I have sensed something odd when I've asked him about nutritional therapy and he said he can't really talk to me about that subject. I asked my wife's doctor about the cardio calcium testing which, from what I understand, can detect the earliest stages of heart disease, and she said she couldn't really talk about that and didn't know anywhere in the Providence health system where that is available. It seems odd the way they wouldn't talk about those two issues.

 

[Stomper]

There are red laser dots trained upon their entire family at all times, one wrong word breaking "policy" and the family gets whacked right where they stand... so they comply.

 

[ma96782]

LOL.....and yet the Dems want money to be given to the CDC to conduct even more research.

Aloha, Mark

 

[bolus]

Not ragging on Doctors because mine is a hoot...we have q great time talking whenever I see him, but great as he is I have sensed something odd when I've asked him about nutritional therapy and he said he can't really talk to me about that subject. I asked my wife's doctor about the cardio calcium testing which, from what I understand, can detect the earliest stages of heart disease, and she said she couldn't really talk about that and didn't know anywhere in the Providence health system where that is available. It seems odd the way they wouldn't talk about those two issues.

That's weird. I assume you mean a coronary scoring test ( or coronary calcium scoring test and the better CT coronary angiogram).

The problem with those is what you do with the results. Lets say it is all clear. Does that mean you will never get coronary artery disease? does it mean you are safe for 1 year? 5 years? we dont really know. So do you get one every year then? that's a lot of radiation so we have to factor in what your chance of getting coronary disease vs chance of the scans giving you cancer.

So what if you find some mild to moderate disease? The treatment for that is good diet and exercise (perhaps a cholesterol medicine) and not smoking . These are things you would be doing anyway. Why spend $800 and get irradiated to tell you that?

What if it shows bad disease? do you risk an angiogram if you are not having any symptoms like chest pain? Not every angiogram is complication free. Plus no one has really studied what to do with coronary scoring tests. we dont know the long term pros and cons yet.

Some of these tests are like trying to predict the future.

Plus insurance does not cover coronary scoring tests.

Several of the private radiology groups do them (Epic imaging, Siker imaging, Body Imaging) and I bet Providence does the coronary scoring. Because insurance does not cover them and patients pay cash, they are making a lot of money on them. Providence certainly does CT coronary angiograms which looks at the heart arteries in much more detail.

 

[308]

Thanks for the clarification bolus...that is what I meant to type. My interest in that subject came from a documentary called Widowmaker...it was on Netflix. My wife was having issues with a rapid heartbeat occurring randomly and was looking for options.

 

[bolus]

Thanks for the clarification bolus...that is what I meant to type. My interest in that subject came from a documentary called Widowmaker...it was on Netflix. My wife was having issues with a rapid heartbeat occurring randomly and was looking for options.

ah. then best to see a cardiologist. Coronary scoring is for predicting future risk. not working up current symptoms. There are much better (and covered) tests for that

 

[rconawa]

A major study by 3 esteemed PhD's, together with 2 MD's, has concluded that 83% of the gun deaths in the United States could be easily eliminated, by simply passing 3 new gun laws. They are:

1) Mandatory background checks on all gun sales

2) Mandatory background checks on all ammunition sales

3) Compulsory registration of all privately owned firearms with the government.

Once all of the above has been done, these highly educated and learned people state the gun violence in America will shrink to a small fraction of what it is currently, with the lives of 83% of the people currently being killed by guns being saved.

Does it not make sense to implement all of these laws, when they would reduce gun deaths so dramatically?? What do you think of the logic they are using?

The authors of the study are:

Dr Bindu Kalesan, PhD, Department of Medicine, Boston University

Matthew E Mobily, MD, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University

Olivia Keiser, PhD, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Switzerland

Jeffrey A Fagan, PhD, Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University

Sandro Galea, MD, School of Public Health, Boston University

Here is a link to the study, which was published in the Lancet:

<broken link removed>


Just pass these 3 simple laws, and countless thousands of lives will be saved!!! Do you think that this is too good to be true? What if all of these laws are past, and gun deaths don't plument?? What then? A study that more gun controls are needed?

It really looks like the movement to require background checks on ammo is growing. As well as demands for mandatory gun registration.

.

Make sense? You must be kidding! First of all the last person I would ask for how to prevent death would be a doctor -current studies show doctor errors are the number 3 killer of people in the US today. They kill many times more people than bad guys with guns. Next, by what reasoning do they think their suggestions will work? It seems to me that 5 anti-gun people got together and asked the question "How can we best sell gun control?".

 

[Oldtrader3]

All also esteemed Jews, I note?

 

[Lantraxco]

Not ragging on Doctors because mine is a hoot...we have q great time talking whenever I see him, but great as he is I have sensed something odd when I've asked him about nutritional therapy and he said he can't really talk to me about that subject. I asked my wife's doctor about the cardio calcium testing which, from what I understand, can detect the earliest stages of heart disease, and she said she couldn't really talk about that and didn't know anywhere in the Providence health system where that is available. It seems odd the way they wouldn't talk about those two issues.

Nutritional therapy is for those hippie Naturopaths, at this company we use pills and scalpels because they're better... moneymakers. As to the Cardiac calcium scan, why in Gawd's name would we do a $1,500 noninvasive scan with 90+% accuracy when we can do an unneeded cath angiogram for $30K on the insurance company's nickel?

 

[tionico]

A major study by 3 esteemed PhD's, together with 2 MD's, has concluded that 83% of the gun deaths in the United States could be easily eliminated, by simply passing 3 new gun laws. They are:

1) Mandatory background checks on all gun sales

2) Mandatory background checks on all ammunition sales

3) Compulsory registration of all privately owned firearms with the government.

Once all of the above has been done, these highly educated and learned people state the gun violence in America will shrink to a small fraction of what it is currently, with the lives of 83% of the people currently being killed by guns being saved.

Does it not make sense to implement all of these laws, when they would reduce gun deaths so dramatically?? What do you think of the logic they are using?

The authors of the study are:

Dr Bindu Kalesan, PhD, Department of Medicine, Boston University

Matthew E Mobily, MD, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University

Olivia Keiser, PhD, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Switzerland

Jeffrey A Fagan, PhD, Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University

Sandro Galea, MD, School of Public Health, Boston University

Here is a link to the study, which was published in the Lancet:

<broken link removed>


Just pass these 3 simple laws, and countless thousands of lives will be saved!!! Do you think that this is too good to be true? What if all of these laws are past, and gun deaths don't plument?? What then? A study that more gun controls are needed?

It really looks like the movement to require background checks on ammo is growing. As well as demands for mandatory gun registration.

.

California alreadu have two out of the three... BGC for all transfers, and registration of all handguns, at least (few are killed iwth long guns, so registering handguns "would stop" almost all firearm deaths, of course. They are working hard at BGC for ammunition sales.


and WHAT HAPPENED in San Bernardino a few months back? At a CHRISTMAS party no less, and in a government facility that was CERTAINLY a "gun free zone"?

These "edjicaytid fools" need a good dose of reality. Look what's happened in Australia... where they came and took almost all the firearms. At first, violent crime spiked, then, after some years, violent GUN crime spiked...... and the people are helpless in the face of the thugs with guns, as they are the only ones to have them besides cops.... and we ALL know cops are just too dang heavy to carry about wherever one happens to go. Something about all the donuts.....

England? Almost the same thing: guns taken and destroyed, their larger cities are some of the most dangerous places on the planet... second only to some larg3 cities in France and Germany.

Yet in Switzerland where nearly every household have arms, ammunition, and know how to use them well, there is almost no "gun crime", and a very low rate of other violent crime.

These clowns are smoking something illegal. Or they are paid to enact a specified political agenda.

 

[308]

Nutritional therapy is for those hippie Naturopaths, at this company we use pills and scalpels because they're better... moneymakers. As to the Cardiac calcium scan, why in Gawd's name would we do a $1,500 noninvasive scan with 90+% accuracy when we can do an unneeded cath angiogram for $30K on the insurance company's nickel?

Glad you mentioned the Cath Lab. That is the main profit center, so why change.

 

[billdeserthills]

All also esteemed Jews, I note?

I hope you won't start a hate thing against a race of people. Not all jews are zionists and not all jews hate guns. I am jewish and I sold guns for several years--religion had nothing to do with it

A couple of friends were talking about a client the other day and when one mentioned being 'jewed down' on his price I understood that he wasn't trying to insult me. That doesn't mean that I like hearing it, but I have had customers try to talk me down on my prices in the past and I don't like that either, so I understand. I also understand that with all the words in the english language, a less abrasive choice can easily be made, without losing the essential conversation that takes place. I would actually prefer hearing the words 'I got fu<ked over' instead

 

[Osarion]

Background checks will stop gang thug violence and suicides. Who knew!

 

[bbbass]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics... I think they should add "studies" to this saying!!