Oh Really? More gun laws = fewer deaths, 50-state study says

http://news.yahoo.com/more-gun-laws-fewer-deaths-134804944.html

CHICAGO (AP) – States with the most gun control laws have the fewest gun-related deaths, according to a study that suggests sheer quantity of measures might make a difference.

But the research leaves many questions unanswered and won’t settle the debate over how policymakers should respond to recent high-profile acts of gun violence.

In the dozen or so states with the most gun control-related laws, far fewer people were shot to death or killed themselves with guns than in the states with the fewest laws, the study found. Overall, states with the most laws had a 42 percent lower gun death rate than states with the least number of laws.

The results are based on an analysis of 2007-2010 gun-related homicides and suicides from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers also used data on gun control measures in all 50 states compiled by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a well-known gun control advocacy group. They compared states by dividing them into four equal-sized groups according to the number of gun laws.

What happened to the other seven states? Did they just leave those out?

Funny how you can manipulate data to fit your agenda… And yes, both sides do it.

I love how these 'researchers" dance around the fact that the strongest correlation between geography and gun crime is the ethnic make-up of the population.

Odd that this study is the opposite of all others and comes at the time when bills will be voted on any minute.

They say in the article that they specifically did not consider specific locality laws, like Chicago’s and DC’s. Odd.

Manipulate the data control the narrative, control the narrative manipulate the masses…

“Lies, damned lies, and statistics”

Because that wouldn’t show the results they wanted.

Liars, damn liars, and statistics. In that order.

The fact that this study originated in Chicago means it has no credibility what so ever. In 2012 Illinois and Chicago had no concealed carry and Chicago had some of the most strict gun laws in the nation yet led the world in homicides. Explain that one folks. No credibility what so ever.

It’s a social problem not a gun problem.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2

Outside major urban areas the most violent place in the US is the South. By far. Once controlling for all factors southerners are still more viole f than a similar northerner. So culture plays an important role too.

RyanB, that’s again just fun with numbers.

Chicago, DC, NYC, Philly, San Fran, KC, Detroit, etc, etc, etc are still “Northerners”, and you can not simply exempt them to show that Southerners are more violent.

I mean you can, but it really invalidates the hypothesis, by default.

The thing I love is that when the researchers do what you suggested, they exempt all the shitholes in the North (listed above), but include Atlanta, NOLA, etc when considering the South’s numbers. It’s really kind of funny to watch.

The FBI data shows it’s primarily an inner city/urban issue of gun violence. However, to point that out is immediately viewed as racism. Although, I unaware that numbers of deaths by gun cared which color someone was…

A majority of crime stems from urban areas with population over 250,000. The FBI has all sorts of data in the uniform crime reports on this.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2

This is why there was a law forbidding the CDC from doing these. They are a left wing government body out to make an agenda. The fact they used the Brady Bunch should just kill their argument right off at the knees.

Agreed, we’re saying the same thing. The North wants to discount the actual problem areas from consideration, even though the data shows that they are the problem and the policies dealing with those areas do not work.

This study can’t survive peer review. Of course that won’t keep it from being quoted nonstop by politicians and the media.

Yes we are. And yes the big cities all want to believe they are right and it’s the other guy that’s wrong. Even when you point to 506 murders in a no gun city, more gun control will fix it. Pathetic.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2

Referencing my post upthread, what can we say about the populations in “The South?”

I live in “The South,” and I can tell you there ain’t a damn thing in MY “culture” that promotes predatory violent criminal behavior.

THere are like 10,000 murders every year with guns. Chicago is about 5% of that number while being about 1% of the population- and even worse, it is really only a small area of Chicago having this crime.

Someone needs to do a zipcode or US Representative district study. This state thing is for the birds. I would bet that of the 50 most violent districts, 49 voted for Obama…

They did it at a state level because it gives them the numbers they want, not that they can’t get the data.

Southerners more violent? only when you attack them…

Also dishonest was the inclusion of suicides. It more than doubled the number of firearms deaths.

Exactly. They point to places like Australia where after guns were banned the number of people who committed suicide by shooting themselves dropped. They conveniently leave out the part where overall suicide numbers were basically unchanged as they just found a different way to off themselves.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2

Someone with more computer smarts than me should put together one of those multi-color charts of the US, using the number of murders per capita as different colors and overlay that on the map. It would show “hot spots”, “cool zones” and whatever else it shows. It would at least give people an idea of where most murders are committed. I would also query the same map with gun related violence as well.