Gun Control & RKBA

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts) Sat Aug 22, 2015, 06:14 AM Aug 2015

Study: Low Injury Rate Shows Gun-Control Laws Work

States like Hawaii with strict gun-control legislation saw fewer gunshot wounds in 2010 than those with more relaxed laws.

Hawaii had the fewest non-fatal injuries from firearms in 2010 in a comparison of 18 states, including California, New York and Florida, a new study shows.

The report found that states with stricter gun-control laws — regulating guns and ammo, requiring background checks before sales, reporting lost or stolen firearms and keeping dangerous people from buying weapons — had the lowest injury rates.

It was published in the August edition of the American Journal of Public Health.

Hawaii had lowest injury rate — 3.3 non-fatal gun injuries per 100,000 people.

[center]

[/center]

http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/08/study-hawaiis-low-rate-of-gun-injuries-shows-strict-gun-control-laws-work/

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Study: Low Injury Rate Shows Gun-Control Laws Work (Original Post) SecularMotion Aug 2015 OP

You just post whatever the microchip tells you, huh? Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #1

The OP already posted a thread about this purported "study," branford Aug 2015 #2

Rarely Duckhunter935 Aug 2015 #3

Manufacturing a false sense of consensus, perhaps? Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #4

Long hot summer of re-runs.nt Eleanors38 Aug 2015 #6

Funny that Iowa and Vermont are almost as low... benEzra Aug 2015 #5

The smallest band sarisataka Aug 2015 #7

Per the "study," branford Aug 2015 #8

Kick SecularMotion Aug 2015 #9

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)

1. You just post whatever the microchip tells you, huh?

Reply to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 08:48 AM

Aug 2015

1. Correlation is not causation

2. One year is not a trend

3. California is as strict if not more strict than Hawaii yet appears to have 6 times the injury rate.

4. Meanwhile, states such as Iowa, Vermont and Utah have substantially more liberal gun laws than California but significantly lower injury rates.

5. In the article the Hawaiian epidemiologist Galanis said he controlled for patients being seen in multiple hospitals for a single incident. The study linked in the propaganda piece states it made an unadjusted count. In other words, there may be double counts.

6. There is no plausible connection between laws such as magazine capacity limits (negligent discharges aren't 30-round incidences) or other legislative standards such as waiting periods.

As it stands the study only looked at laws as on a 0 to 28 scale --

The exposure of interest was the strictness of state-level firearm legislation, which was assessed using 2009 state scorecards created by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

We examined 2009 scorecards because they represented legislation that presumably would have been enacted before the period that we measured firearm outcomes.

The Brady Campaign assigns a score to each state on the basis of 28 possible classes of laws
present, grouped into 5 broad categories of firearm legislation:

1. firearm trafficking,
2. background checks,
3. child access prevention,
4. limitations on military-style assault weapons, and
5. limitations on firearms in public places

(data available as a supplement to the online version of this article at http://www.ajph.org).

We assigned states a single point for each class of law present. Potential scores range from 0 to 28; higher scores indicate stricter legislation.

Ignoring the dubious relationship and standards perhaps the study would be more valuable if it looked at particular laws such as safety training and child access laws.

7. There is no mention of how each state was rated. We are simply expected to trust the judgment of medical professionals when rating legal requirements. In other words, one state may have stricter child access laws while another has tougher anti-trafficking laws. Yet, the latter could conceivably gain a higher score. We do not know; it is left as a matter of faith in the judgment of those conducting the study.

branford

(4,462 posts)

2. The OP already posted a thread about this purported "study,"

Reply to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 09:23 AM

Aug 2015

and its defects have been explained.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172173913

It's bad enough to repeatedly Google dump, but the OP should at least have the courtesy of reading about the subject of his posts and ensuring they're not duplicates, particularly since he rarely, if ever, actually offers substantive comments.

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)

3. Rarely

Reply to branford (Reply #2)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 09:55 AM

Aug 2015

Might be an overstatement

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)

4. Manufacturing a false sense of consensus, perhaps?

Reply to branford (Reply #2)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 10:18 AM

Aug 2015

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)

6. Long hot summer of re-runs.nt

Reply to branford (Reply #2)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 01:13 PM

Aug 2015

benEzra

(12,148 posts)

5. Funny that Iowa and Vermont are almost as low...

Reply to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 10:36 AM

Aug 2015

on that chart, and both are *very* pro-gun. Vermont doesn't even require a license to carry a concealed pistol.

sarisataka

(18,656 posts)

7. The smallest band

Reply to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 02:28 PM

Aug 2015

For "assault related" injuries is Vermont. Does this prove "more guns equals less crime?"

branford

(4,462 posts)

8. Per the "study,"

Reply to sarisataka (Reply #7)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 02:52 PM

Aug 2015

I believe you forgot to "adjust for differences in state sociodemographic characteristics and economic conditions" and "proportion of each state’s population that owned firearms," or "limited to discharges for those aged 0 to 19 years."

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302617

Besides the very basic fact ignored by many that correlation most certainly doesn't necessarily equal causation, the study's authors were very selective in their data sets and methods, apparently in order to confirm their preconceived opinions.

As I've stated before, it's political activism masquerading as scholarship like this that justifies restrictions on funding of government research into firearm issues and policies.

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)

9. Kick

Reply to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 03:44 PM

Aug 2015

Reply to this discussion