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

[MrElectric03]

Won't be long before CA has gone to all of these so that means all gun deaths will suddenly stop...proof that educated doesn't actually mean intelligent.

 

[bolus]

Interesting! I went and found the full text of the article. The states it used for ammunition background checks are IL, MA and NJ (this includes having an existing permit). They used statistical analysis to estimate effects on the rest of the country if these state laws were in effect. They did a valid analysis

The best part of their analysis though, which they dont mention in their conclusion, were the laws that lead to increased firearm related deaths. The top 3 are mandatory firearm locks, Assault weapon bans and a tie of mandatory theft reporting and bulk purchase limitations (like limiting one handgun per month). THere are also a pile of laws that made no effect on firearm related deaths like closure of the "gun show loophole"

So if you choose to discuss this article, make sure you use their own data as an argument to promote getting rid of these laws and opposing assault weapons bans because this study shows they actually increase firearm related deaths.

Summary of results - I copied the list of laws. Increase means increased risk of firearm related death. No change means no effect on rate of firearm related deaths. use of 'slight' and 'significant' are my own interpretation.

Bold means the state laws has no effects on deaths

Gun dealer licence -slight decrease
Record keeping and retention - slight decrease
Report records to state - no change
Mandatory theft reporting - increase
Gun store security precaution - slight decrease
Police inspection - slight increase
Bulk purchases limitation - increase
Firearm identification - significant decrease
Owner theft reporting - decrease
Universal background checks - decrease
Fingerprinting - no change
Safety training - decrease
Extension of background checks limit - slight increase
Permit law involvement - decrease
Closure of gun show loophole - no change
Ammunition purchaser records - no change
Ammunition background checks - significant decrease
Firearm locks - significant increase
Child handgun restrictions - no change
Child access - no change
Juvenile handgun purchases - no change
Assault weapon ban - increase
Large magazine ban no change
Discretion allowed when issuing concealed-carry permits - slight increase
Stand-your-ground no change

Edit. Just to say it again, their study showed BANNING ASSAULT WEAPONS INCREASES FIREARM RELATED DEATHS. This is huge

 

[Joe Link]

@Joe Link (this graph may be copyrighted, let me know if it needs to be removed)

I appreciate the heads up. Any way we can confirm it?

 

[slimmer13]

Interesting! I went and found the full text of the article. The states it used for ammunition background checks are IL, MA and NJ (this includes having an existing permit). They used statistical analysis to estimate effects on the rest of the country if these state laws were in effect. They did a valid analysis

The best part of their analysis though, which they dont mention in their conclusion, were the laws that lead to increased firearm related deaths. The top 3 are mandatory firearm locks, Assault weapon bans and a tie of mandatory theft reporting and bulk purchase limitations (like limiting one handgun per month). THere are also a pile of laws that made no effect on firearm related deaths like closure of the "gun show loophole"

So if you choose to discuss this article, make sure you use their own data as an argument to promote getting rid of these laws and opposing assault weapons bans because this study shows they actually increase firearm related deaths.

everything in the middle to the right of the line is neutral or made things worse. All of those are useless laws.

@Joe Link (this graph may be copyrighted, let me know if it needs to be removed)

I thought UBCs was closing the "gun show loophole"?

 

[bolus]

I appreciate the heads up. Any way we can confirm it?

I have no idea what the rules are. The article has a Copyright 2016 on it. I'm looking at the full article on www.clinicalkey.com If you want, I can delete it and type a summary when I get home.

 

[Joe Link]

I have no idea what the rules are. The article has a Copyright 2016 on it. I'm looking at the full article on www.clinicalkey.com If you want, I can delete it and type a summary when I get home.

It appears to be behind a paywall. As much as I hate to remove good info like that, it looks like we better err on the side of caution

 

[U8395279]

And this will help reduce suicides, which by far accounts for the most gun deaths? Or do they only include those numbers when it's convenient for them?

Yes, if you read the study, it does indeed claim that it will prevent the majority of suicides too. Whether their logic or their statistical analysis is valid, though, is the question. Could such highly educated people be wrong?

Or could they perhaps have a hidden agenda behind them coming to these conclusions??

I do wonder who did fund this study? That might be a clue. It was based in New York and Boston.

 

[U8395279]

This sounds suspiciously like a Bloomberg funded study. Smaller soft drinks won't make you fat.

Good point. Someone did have to fund this. I cannot find any mention, though, of where their funding came from.

 

[U8395279]

And this will help reduce suicides, which by far accounts for the most gun deaths? Or do they only include those numbers when it's convenient for them?

Well, if they got all guns registered, and if they could also collect data from the medical records of people who are depressed, they would then know who needs to have their guns confiscated for their own safety.

But to be able to confiscate guns, you need to first have them all registered.

 

[bolus]

Good point. Someone did have to fund this. I cannot find any mention, though, of where their funding came from.

the study says it was unfunded.

 

[U8395279]

the study says it was unfunded.

Does that not sound a bit suspicious? So all of these people just volunteered their time?

My experience is that PhD's and MD's do not work for free.

Hmm, I could find a record that Bloomberg gave Columbia University's Medical Center $25 Million 3 years ago.

But I cannot find any other specifics that would link him to these two colleges. I don't see any comprehensive info about all of his donations listed anywhere. Although his own website states that he has donated $4.3 Billion to date, with $510 Million of that being made in 2015 alone.

.

 

[bolus]

Does that not sound a bit suspicious? So all of these people just volunteered their time?

My experience is that PhD's and MD's do not work for free.

Hmm, I could find a record that Bloomberg gave Columbia University's Medical Center $25 Million 3 years ago.

But I cannot find any other specifics that would link him to these two colleges. I don't see any comprehensive info about all of his donations listed anywhere. Although his own website states that he has donated $4.3 Billion to date, with $510 Million of that being made in 2015 alone.

.

People do studies for recognition and to further their careers. It helps to be published to list it on your CV. Since they made no mention of the laws that made firearm death's worse I sensed their bias as well. That does not mean their statistics were wrong or fabricated, but it gives hesitation to just relying on the results as conclusive evidence. 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.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Study? This is not a study. This is an unfunded article written by hacks and self published on the internet. There is no study.

 

[kilimanjaro]

There is no such thing as a valid statistical analysis when it merely plugs numbers into your proposed agenda. You absolutely cannot determine the effect of a law that requires background checks for ammunition purchases unless each and every round of ammunition used in a crime was obtained in the state under the jurisdiction of the law and at a known time and place. The other two proposed laws are suffering from the same problem, i.e., phony 'extrapolation' to support an agenda and presented to a public that will accept such garbage as 'science'.

 

[bolus]

There is no such thing as a valid statistical analysis when it merely plugs numbers into your proposed agenda.

As I mentioned about, the analysis actually shows that the majority of the gun control laws reviewed in the study show either no effect or increased risk of firearm related death. Clearly not what the author wanted to point out in the conclusion but at least he left in the data.

This study is actually more beneficial to us than harmful if you look at the actual data.

 

[billdeserthills]

This sounds suspiciously like a Bloomberg funded study. Smaller soft drinks won't make you fat.

Soft drinks too, I thought this spoon was doing it?!!?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Interesting! I went and found the full text of the article. The states it used for ammunition background checks are IL, MA and NJ (this includes having an existing permit). They used statistical analysis to estimate effects on the rest of the country if these state laws were in effect. They did a valid analysis

We all know states with the same laws often have severely different gun crime rates (like a southern border state compared to a New England state). What method did they use to account for differences in population density, population dispersement, population diversity, social class, employment rates, incarceration rates, gang crime rates, and so on before comparing states?

Also, how did they break down the individual state crime rates to determine what percentage of those crimes would have been prevented by such laws?

 

[bolus]

We all know states with the same laws often have severely different gun crime rates (like a southern border state compared to a New England state). What method did they use to account for differences in population density, population dispersement, population diversity, social class, employment rates, incarceration rates, gang crime rates, and so on before comparing states?

Also, how did they break down the individual state crime rates to determine what percentage of those crimes would have been prevented by such laws?

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


Statistical analysis

First, we assessed the distribution of the total counts of firearm-related mortality in 2010 in the USA. Because the variance of our outcome was equal to the mean, we used Poisson regression with population as an offset to normalise population sizes, and robust standard errors. 20 We undertook crude and multivariable Poisson regression to estimate how the presence of a specific law corresponded to rates of firearm mortality in the US states and derived the incidence rate ratios (IRRs), 95% CI, and corresponding p values. We assessed model fit using deviance goodness-of-fit, McFadden's adjusted R 2 , and Akaike Information Criteria (statistics in appendix ). 21 Second, from the final model, we predicted the probabilities for firearm mortality occurring in each state. Third, using the firearm risk profile for each state, we predicted the relative risk as of 2009 and then the relative risk if the states passed each of the effective firearm laws. Fourth, we predicted the possible discrete change in firearm mortality associated with federal level implementation of three most effective laws. Fifth, we did a sensitivity analysis using the change in firearm mortality rate per 100 000 people from 2008 to 2010 as the outcome. We also assessed the effectiveness of laws after combining them into different classifications, while keeping stand-your-ground and restrictions of so-called concealed-carry laws as separate laws (concealed-carry laws permit the carrying of a concealed weapon). Sixth, we used crude and multivariable models to determine the effectiveness of each firearm law separately for firearm homicides and suicides. We used Stata 13.1 to manage the data and do the analyses. All statistical tests were two-sided

 

[ChiefStealth]

Well, if 83% of gun deaths could be avoided by having three laws in effect, then gun deaths should be quite low in a place where these three laws *are* in effect. These three laws have been passed in New York City. Background checks, and permits, are required to own firearms. All firearms are registered. A law requiring background checks to buy ammunition was recently passed. The three laws exist in New York City. Is anyone going to contend that a huge number of gun deaths are not happening there?

 

[U8395279]

Interesting! I went and found the full text of the article. The states it used for ammunition background checks are IL, MA and NJ (this includes having an existing permit). They used statistical analysis to estimate effects on the rest of the country if these state laws were in effect. They did a valid analysis

The best part of their analysis though, which they dont mention in their conclusion, were the laws that lead to increased firearm related deaths. The top 3 are mandatory firearm locks, Assault weapon bans and a tie of mandatory theft reporting and bulk purchase limitations (like limiting one handgun per month). THere are also a pile of laws that made no effect on firearm related deaths like closure of the "gun show loophole"

So if you choose to discuss this article, make sure you use their own data as an argument to promote getting rid of these laws and opposing assault weapons bans because this study shows they actually increase firearm related deaths.

Summary of results - I copied the list of laws. Increase means increased risk of firearm related death. No change means no effect on rate of firearm related deaths. use of 'slight' and 'significant' are my own interpretation.

Bold means the state laws has no effects on deaths

Gun dealer licence -slight decrease
Record keeping and retention - slight decrease
Report records to state - no change
Mandatory theft reporting - increase
Gun store security precaution - slight decrease
Police inspection - slight increase
Bulk purchases limitation - increase
Firearm identification - significant decrease
Owner theft reporting - decrease
Universal background checks - decrease
Fingerprinting - no change
Safety training - decrease
Extension of background checks limit - slight increase
Permit law involvement - decrease
Closure of gun show loophole - no change
Ammunition purchaser records - no change
Ammunition background checks - significant decrease
Firearm locks - significant increase
Child handgun restrictions - no change
Child access - no change
Juvenile handgun purchases - no change
Assault weapon ban - increase
Large magazine ban no change
Discretion allowed when issuing concealed-carry permits - slight increase
Stand-your-ground no change

Edit. Just to say it again, their study showed BANNING ASSAULT WEAPONS INCREASES FIREARM RELATED DEATHS. This is huge

Your analysis here is excellent Bolus. These are outstanding points that you make.

However, the news media has appeared to ignore all of the rest of these findings.

.