Firearm Related Studies Vol 1: Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home

[Dr.Strangelove]

@DrDeth

Do they declare they are in favor of banning all cars?

They declare in favor of all kinds of auto-related laws consistent with their research on auto fatalities:

Even when considering population size, miles traveled, and number of registered vehicles, the US consistently ranked poorly relative to other high-income countries for crash deaths. Some of the best performing countries:

Have policies in line with best practices, including those that address:
Primary enforcement of seat belt laws that cover everyone in every seat.
[INDENT]Police officers can stop a vehicle and write a ticket for anyone not buckled up.
Requirements for car seats and booster seats for child passengers through at least age 8.
Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) levels.
US, Canada and the United Kingdom define drunk driving as BAC levels at 0.08% or - above; all other comparison countries use lower BAC levels (0.02-0.05%).
[/INDENT]Use advanced engineering and technology, such as:
Ignition interlocks for all people convicted of drunk driving.
[INDENT]This device keeps the vehicle from starting unless the driver has a BAC below a pre-set low limit.
Automated enforcement, for example, speed and red light cameras.
Improvements in vehicle safety and transportation infrastructure.
[/INDENT]Implement proven measures, such as:
More use of publicized sobriety checkpoints.
Maintain and enforce the minimum legal drinking age.

[CarnalK]

@DrDeth

Do they declare they are in favor of banning all cars?

I’m sorry, did you link to this declaration that the CDC wanted to ban guns? Because all I saw was a declaration by someone else that they had “effectively” declared the wish to ban guns.

[Bone]

I’m going to leave alone the criticism of the CDC since it’s not germane to this study. If the information is good, then it’s good regardless of the source. Same as if it’s bad. But it could be evaluated on its own merits.

@Voyager

The controls were people from the same neighborhood. The criticism that they picked homicide rich environments is pretty bizarre since to get statistically significant amounts of data for a particular area you have to pick such places.
The criticism about the weapons kept in the home not being the murder weapon is particularly stupid, since the paper indicates that the victims were killed by things other than guns a good number of times. The study was not about whether guns in the house kill people, it was about whether people with guns in the house are killed at higher rates than those without. And the study showed that people with similar characteristics who lived in the same crappy neighborhood (for 2 of the 3 counties) died at lower rates.

Yes the study was about whether people with guns in the house are killed at higher rates than those without. What it doesn’t do is determine if the gun in the house was the reason for an difference, if there really were any difference. Think of it another way, imagine a household that had the characteristics of one of the case examples, except without a gun in the house. Would you think their risk for homicide by any cause from any person were the same as the control group? The group that lead much less risky lifestyles? Because when the study discourages gun possession, but makes no mention of violent behavior, drug use and dealing, fighting, living alone, etc. it seems like a motivated result.

[CarnalK]

You quoted the study yourself saying “The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are also important risk factors.” So that can’t be your objection. What your real objection seems to be is that a gun study focused it’s conclusion on the gun factor. That they really should have concluded “drugs are bad, m’kay?” and left it at that.

[Voyager]

@DrDeth

Yes, but you see, measles and Zica are dangerous Diseases, which the Center For Disease Control has as it job to control. Not guns.

Guns have many uses- police, military, hunting and even Olympic sports. They are also protected by the 2nd Ad . They are also politically controversial. Should the CDC lobby against cars as many people die in them?

None of those are true with diseases.

If you substituted “Disease X” for guns and Disease X had the same fatality rate as guns do, every politician in the country would be all over the CDC to do something about it.
Guns kill a lot more people than measles do or Zika does in the US. We’re just lucky cancer doesn’t have a lobby.
BTW, in addition to Dr. Strangelove’s informative post, let me point out cars are licenses, and there is a database of them. Maybe you should worry about the government ceasing all the cars and making us ride bicycles.

[Voyager]

@Bone

I’m going to leave alone the criticism of the CDC since it’s not germane to this study. If the information is good, then it’s good regardless of the source. Same as if it’s bad. But it could be evaluated on its own merits.

Yes the study was about whether people with guns in the house are killed at higher rates than those without. What it doesn’t do is determine if the gun in the house was the reason for an difference, if there really were any difference. Think of it another way, imagine a household that had the characteristics of one of the case examples, except without a gun in the house. Would you think their risk for homicide by any cause from any person were the same as the control group? The group that lead much less risky lifestyles? Because when the study discourages gun possession, but makes no mention of violent behavior, drug use and dealing, fighting, living alone, etc. it seems like a motivated result.

It would be interesting to see if fighting and drugs are correlated with drug ownership. And it would be interesting to see if living alone was significant if that were the independent variable. I could see it being highly correlated with suicide, but not with homicide. But worth doing a study.