American Journal of Medicine: Higher gun ownership equals higher gun violence

[BainsBane]

Transcript and video here: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10810&updaterx=2013-10-06+12%3A02%3A00

DESVARIEUX: According to a recent study by the American Journal of Medicine, countries with the highest share of gun ownership actually have the highest firearms-related deaths.
Here to discuss the significance of this study is Ladd Everitt. He is the director of communications of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
Thanks for being with us, Ladd. . .
Can you summarize the findings from The American Journal of Medicine about the relationship between firearm ownership and firearms-related deaths?

EVERITT: Yeah, well, they looked at a number of different states. It was a very far-reaching study, particularly for study this type, and they did find positive correlations in terms of the, you know, level of gun ownerships, less gun ownership in the home and communities, and then in terms of levels of gun homicide and also gun suicide. And that confirmed previous studies that we've seen in this area that showed similar findings.

DESVARIEUX: How does gun violence in the U.S. compare what other countries?

EVERITT: It's astronomically higher, particularly when you compare it to other developed countries and other high-income nations. You know, the pattern typically is the U.S. has a higher overall homicide rate, and then when you look specifically at the gun death rate, our gun death rate is typically astronomically higher than other democracies' and high-income nations'.

Coverage of the same study in the Guardian

High gun ownership makes countries less safe, US study finds
Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare.

Their findings, published Wednesday in the prestigious American Journal of Medicine, debunk the historic belief among many people in the United States that guns make a country safer, they say. On the contrary, the US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms, while Japan, which has the lowest rate of gun ownership, has the least.

The journal has fast-tracked publication of the study because of the shootings at the Washington navy yard. It was originally scheduled for later this week.

It follows an emotional appeal from a doctor at the trauma center in Washington where the victims of Aaron Alexis' random violence were taken. "I would like you to put my trauma center out of business," Janis Orlowski, chief medical officer at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, told reporters in the aftermath of the massacre. "I would like to not be an expert on gunshots. Let's get rid of this. This is not America."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study

Link to study: http://www.amjmed.com/article/PIIS0002934313004440/fulltext

[BainsBane]

1. Text from the study in the American Journal of Medicine

Abstract
Background
A variety of claims about possible associations between gun ownership rates, mental illness burden, and the risk of firearm-related deaths have been put forward. However, systematic data on this issue among various countries remain scant. Our objective was to assess whether the popular notion “guns make a nation safer” has any merits.

Methods
Data on gun ownership were obtained from the Small Arms Survey, and for firearm-related deaths from a European detailed mortality database (World Health Organization), the National Center for Health Statistics, and others. Crime rate was used as an indicator of safety of the nation and was obtained from the United Nations Surveys of Crime Trends. Age-standardized disability-adjusted life-year rates due to major depressive disorder per 100,000 inhabitants with data obtained from the World Health Organization database were used as a putative indicator for mental illness burden in a given country.

Results
Among the 27 developed countries, there was a significant positive correlation between guns per capita per country and the rate of firearm-related deaths (r = 0.80; P <.0001). In addition, there was a positive correlation (r = 0.52; P = .005) between mental illness burden in a country and firearm-related deaths. However, there was no significant correlation (P = .10) between guns per capita per country and crime rate (r = .33), or between mental illness and crime rate (r = 0.32; P = .11). In a linear regression model with firearm-related deaths as the dependent variable with gun ownership and mental illness as independent covariates, gun ownership was a significant predictor (P <.0001) of firearm-related deaths, whereas mental illness was of borderline significance (P = .05) only.

Conclusion
The number of guns per capita per country was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death in a given country, whereas the predictive power of the mental illness burden was of borderline significance in a multivariable model. Regardless of exact cause and effect, however, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer.

http://www.amjmed.com/article/PIIS0002934313004440/fulltext#abs0010

[Turbineguy]

2. But more gun violence is a good thing!

Ask any Teabagger. They know what's good for America!

[BainsBane]

3. Their argument is that more guns prevent violence

and that violence results from people not having enough guns to protect themselves. This study shows that to be false. Now watch them come insist this study is biased.

[telclaven]

4. Good God! That's like saying

Increased car ownership is related to increased automobile deaths!

[BainsBane]

5. Those are human lives you are mocking

Family members of people on this website whose deaths you consider a joke.

[telclaven]

6. It's a stupid title for a research document

I do research presentations for a living. Something like this would get me repremanded, possibly fired. So forgive me for mocking a stupid research presentation. Or, better yet, don't fortive me. I really don't care.

[BainsBane]

7. It's the American Journal of Medicine

just because it doesn't fulfill gun fetishist delusions about guns doesn't make it invalid. You didn't even bother to read it. There is a clear correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates too. Your professional research skills should enable to find that on Wikipedia, if you actually gave a fuck.

Moreover, it's not the title of the research project or article. It's the title of the article in the first linked source. Your research skills don't appear so great to me, when you can't figure out something that basic.

[telclaven]

8. I realize it's the JofM

They sensationalized the title. It's the Reader's Digest effect that I've lamented coming from professional publications for years now.

Don't believe I said ANYTHING about the data, there's really nothing to comment on except methodology. I just find the title trite and annoying. Perhaps better reading comprehension?

[BainsBane]

9. The title is the piece on the Real News Network

Amazingly, academic research articles don't generally begin with the name of the journal in which they are published. And you accuse me of having problems with reading comprehension?

[telclaven]

71. You are absolutely correct and I apologize

Operating on two hours sleep is my only excuse.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

21. I can tell you suck at giving presentations and should be repremanded (sic)

[kestrel91316]

37. What did you get your PhD in, and what sort of articles have you had published in a

refereed journal? What were there titles? We do need to verify that you are the expert you make yourself out to be.

[telclaven]

69. Don't have a PhD, never said I did

Most of the work I do revolves around test and evaluation. Nothing published. Well, some poetry in college, but that's beside the point :}

[kestrel91316]

79. Then don't presume to tell PhD's how to title their published work.

[etherealtruth]

42. Wow

Are you looking for another line of work?

[NoGOPZone]

61. How do they feel about your spelling? nt

[telclaven]

70. Dunno

I'm a math geek, I have a tech editor to cheque the speling

[Niceguy1]

31. interesting

That the homicide rate in the us is actually declining...

[Recursion]

35. "Declining" understates it: it has collapsed over the past 20 years

A person in the US in 1913 was at greater risk of being murdered than a person in the US in 2013.



For that matter, it's collapsed worldwide over the past 300 years:

[Niceguy1]

38. which totally

Undercuts ths meme of more firearms more murders.

[Recursion]

39. Does it? I've seen no compelling data from anyone on actual gun ownership rates

We have estimates, but I've never seen a real study.

Specifically, I'd like to see how many people actually have possession of a gun, legally or not, over the years.

[BainsBane]

44. No, it doesn't

It's not a meme. The article shows that the propaganda that guns make people safer is false. The US still has the highest homicide rate in the First World and higher than many developing countries as well. That must be exactly how gun proponents want it, since they can't even bother to read anything that challenges their worship of guns.

The homicide rate has declined because of the percentage of young men in the population. Most violent crimes are committed by men under 30. Fewer young men, fewer homicides.

[EX500rider]

53. "Fewer young men, fewer homicides."

Wait, I thought it was less guns, less murder...

[LanternWaste]

49. I used to be anti-science too on the occasions it illustrated my scared cows in a negative light.

I used to be anti-science too on the occasions it illustrated my scared cows in a negative light.

[pinboy3niner]

66. Scared cows?

Amusing typo.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

20. uh yeah.

Safety features. Regulation on cars. Regulation on drivers. Totally different than the wild west of buying and owning guns.

[Recursion]

30. I'd like to lower both car ownership and gun ownership rates

Actually figuring out a way to do that is what's tricky

[eqfan592]

94. You do understand that your point in no way refutes his, right? nt

[eqfan592]

93. You hit the nail on the head.

The fact that so many people refuse to see it underscores the fact that they shut down the rational part of their brain when it comes to this issue.

[Capt. Obvious]

95. The hammer has now been given the hammer

Buh buy troll

[EX500rider]

10. These graphs don't seem to agree with that data:

[BainsBane]

11. In what way?

You haven't controlled for income level or any of the factors the study does. You should read it, at least the brief synopsis that covers their conclusions and research methods.

[EX500rider]

12. Well then are firearms the cause or the income levels and other factors?

If higher firearm ownership equals more murder then I would expect the US to be at the far right of both graphs.

[BainsBane]

14. Read the study

Is it really so hard? The link is at the end of the OP.

[Gravitycollapse]

16. You realize there can be more than one cause, right?

How is this so difficult to grasp?

[BainsBane]

17. Evidently

The point is to avoid thinking much because that would challenge the idea that moar guns iz alwayz better.

[Gravitycollapse]

57. Nuance is not often of much concern to the irreparably dense.

Neither is the idea that there are confluent variables at play when observing a phenomena.

[JonLP24]

26. The study argues more guns = more firearm deaths

while you're disputing more guns = more murders.

Hope that clears up any confusion.

[EX500rider]

54. "more guns = more firearm deaths"

Yet the table of European gun ownership Vs homicide rate shows the exact opposite...the countries with more guns do not have more homicide.

[JonLP24]

55. The study narrowly focuses on firearm deaths

while the information you provide covers overall murders. The study is not making the case that there is more homicide.

[Gravitycollapse]

58. This is made with the assumption that there is literally no other variable at play in gun deaths.

Which is a betrayal of reason.

[EX500rider]

13. "In what way?"

This graph seems to dis-agree also:



The countries with the least guns have higher murder rates?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

23. that is a table--not a greaph. Your table is bogus

where did you get it? What is the source?

[EX500rider]

51. Bogus?

Which figures to you find to be wrong?

It came from Guns.com (oh gosh it must be BS now! lol)

The facts are the facts no matter where they come from.

[BainsBane]

74. Guns.com?

Anyone can make up a bullshit graph on their computer. Without a source, it's meaningless. If there really is a site called guns.com and that's where you got it, it's truly hysterical that you think that invalidates a study in the American Journal of Medicine.

Gunners are a hoot.

[EX500rider]

85. Right, bad source so it must be bullshit?

How about you prove it wrong?

Russia have more guns and less crime then, say Finland?

Or does Finland have WAY more guns and LOTS less homicide?

How can that be if "more guns=more deaths"?

[G_j]

40. gotta source those graphs..

[Decaffeinated]

67. Question.. is someone more or less dead based on their income?

[Recursion]

29. That compares overall homicides, not gun violence

That answers a different question than what the study asked.

[EX500rider]

52. Yes and gun murders would be even a smaller percentage..

.....and the US still has the most guns, yet is way down the on the homicide chart.

[Recursion]

60. "Gun violence" includes suicide

Though frankly I don't know that either side really knows what to do with suicide numbers.

[Capt. Obvious]

86. We beat Kenya!!!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

15. In related finding, increase in trampolines leads to more trampoline-related injuries

and yet such basic math and probability escape gun humpers.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. And more alcohol means more

car accidents, physical assaults, domestic violence, sexual assaults, workplace injuries, pathologies, depression, suicide...

[JonLP24]

18. I'll click the link

but my initial thoughts are I see what about the Nordic countries?

[BainsBane]

19. You want to click the link at the bottom to see the actual study

[JonLP24]

24. Thanks

I see the countries I was curious about are between 1 to 4 in firearm deaths per 100,000. South Africa and the US are really separate from the pack.

I noticed what is different about the study as opposed to the table/graphs posted above is the study strictly deals with firearm related deaths.

I didn't think rates of mental illnesses were at all predictive of this sort of thing. Thanks for posting.

[AustinActivist435]

22. sporting purposes

I believe marksmanship is a legitimate sport but I support reasonable gun control to prevent tragedies like Columbine and Sandy Hook.

[GreenStormCloud]

25. And more car means more car deaths.

If there were zero gun in the U.S. then we would have zero gun deaths. But we don't know how many other kinds of violent deaths we may have in their place.

I know that my wife is alive, saved from a violent death, because she was armed when she needed to be. Her would be attacker fled when he discovered that she was armed, no shots fired.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

28. way to bring anecdotal evidence to an empirical evidence fight

you lose.

[GreenStormCloud]

32. My way of pointing out that they leave out DGUs.

I will grant that valid DGU data is greatly argued over.

[BainsBane]

45. Yes, we do know

Any child can look up stats on Wikipedia, or you could read the study. You won't though.

[GreenStormCloud]

33. The study has the same flaw that all the anti-gun studies share.

It does not differentiate between legal and illegal gun owners. Most gun violence comes from illegal gun owners. Legal gun owners rarely (NOTE: "Rarely" does NOT mean "never&quot misuse their guns to cause illegal harm to another person. Because they are anti-gun to begin with, they conflate law-abiding gun owners with violent criminals.

[Recursion]

34. Not sure there are any data to back up your claim

Most gun violence comes from illegal gun owners.

I'm not so sure about that. Though that can mean a lot of things: do you mean "legally in the owner's possession at the time of the crime" or "legally transferred to the owner when it first came into his possession"?

In either case, I've never seen convincing data that your claim is true. (Nor that it's false; this is a problem with not tracking gun transfers.)

[BainsBane]

46. Moreover, they work to make sure illegal gun owners aren't kept from

acquiring guns easily by opposing any actual background check legislation. Data is irrelevant to that one. If forced to look at it, he will tell you it says the opposite of what it does, as he did with a federal report on gun trafficking into Mexico. We are dealing with a belief system that is entirely unconcerned with fact or reason.

[Gormy Cuss]

43. Where is the evidence that the study authors are "anti-gun to begin with?"

Last edited Mon Oct 7, 2013, 08:15 PM - Edit history (1)

More to the point, did you read the link to the study report? Are you aware that it was comparing a national per capita ownership to all firearm related deaths, not just criminal firearm related deaths?

This study, like the recent HSPH analysis of state gun ownership and suicide rates, is looking at prevalence of firearms as a predictor.
Both studies found strong correlations.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/

[GreenStormCloud]

48. Without dividing the ownership into the two classes, the data is meaningless.

A small portion of the population is causing the vast majority of the problems. It is well known by criminologist that murderers rarely commit murder as their first serious crime. Therefore, a focus on known violent criminals would go further in reducing murder than would an effort spread over the general population. I believe that most gun crimes are committed by people who are already known to have criminal records. Yet the anti-gun studies refuse to acknowledge the effect of the criminal class.

The best predictor of future actions is past actions. If I have lived 67 years with a completely clean police record, then it is extremely unlikely that I am suddenly going to have a fit of murderous rage. It rarely happens that way. Ozzie and Harriet (Old 1950's TV couple - Loving, functional, family that didn't have angry arguments.) don't get mad and kill each other. Domestic violence murders are almost always already well known to the police.

Suicide rates I am not concerned with. It is a risk that I choose to accept and I don't need the gov't to be my nanny. If an illness should make me desire to die a bit early to avoid pain, taking my guns away won't change anything. I will breathe pure nitrogen to make my exit. Quick, cheap, painless, non-messy. (Empty bowel and bladder first.)

Both of the studies in question lump all gun owners together in a common pool, when in reality we are two strongly different groups.

[Gormy Cuss]

50. The study IS concerned with suicide rates and unintentional firearm related deaths.

And the HSPH study is explicitly about suicide rates. Declaring them meaningless because you want the focus to be on firearm homicides is silly. That's not what these studies are attempting to measure. It's like saying a study of Granny Smith apples is meaningless because it doesn't compare them to Pippins.

[Spider Jerusalem]

47. That's a meaningless distinction

since it's gun ownership, full stop, that causes higher rates of gun deaths. Whether legal or illegal.

[CreekDog]

56. are most suicides done with illegal guns?

and are most domestic violence murders and shootings done with illegal guns?

your posts all have the same flaw: everything you post is slanted to the right.

[GreenStormCloud]

62. Answers:

Suicides - Mostly with legal guns. I accept the risk. I don't need the gov't to be my nanny.

Domestic violence murders - Mostly with illegal guns. It is well known among criminologists that it is rare for a person to commit murder as their first offense. The idea of a happy couple blowing up in a murderous rage is an anti-gunner myth. Actual domestic murders are usually already well known to the police.

Accusing me of an RW slant is not a rebuttal. If that is all you have, you have nothing.

[CreekDog]

82. your RW slant is relevant here. when you disagree with us on almost everything, that matters

how much credibility should you have when you reliably take the RW position here regularly?

[GreenStormCloud]

83. So all you have is personal attack.

Personal attack is not a rebuttal. Nor do I disagree on everything. But echo chamber posts are boring. I don't like being a "me too". So I post on things I find challenging. Recently I have strong disagreed on the threads that want to jail political opponents, because jailing political opponents is what dictators do. I have been joined in that stance by other DUers. My stance on that does no make me an RW, anymore than the ACLU is RW for defending the American Nazis and Limbaugh.

I have been against U.S. military action in Sryia, as have many other DUers.

I am for national health care for everybody, although I have some doubts about the ACA.

[IdaBriggs]

72. I think you miss the point. High *legal* gun rates = high gun violence.

If high *illegal* rates were important, the high gun violence would be on the other side.

[Hoyt]

78. Is an illegal gun owner someone who can't pass a background check?

Truthfully, I think most gun violence perpetrators probably start out as "legal." Maybe their dad, or a friend, introduces them into the gun culture. Heck, maybe in the military.

Then one day, they use a gun to intimidate someone, or rob them, or like Zimmerman. Or maybe, they can't pass a background check, and buy a gun from a "legal" owner who doesn't give a crap who he sells it to.

Would NRA President Keene's son be considered a "legal" gun owner? Daddy Keene introduced the kid to the gun culture. Kid grew up, was driving down the road, someone ticked him off, Little Keene shot the motorist and was imprisoned. Was Little Keene a "legal" or "illegal' gun owner in your attempt to rationalize the fact that we have way too many guns in this country, gun nuts, and resultant gun violence.

[joeybee12]

36. Not the first study to show the connection, but the gun fetishists are

doing their best to deny it, I see.

[G_j]

41. we have more gun deaths

but that means we have less bad guys!

[LittleBlue]

59. And water makes things wet

These are mysteries to contemplate

[BainsBane]

65. Yeah, I didn't figure you'd bother to read the study

Just your typical empty response that shows contempt for anyone who cares about human life or human rights, or anything actually.

[LittleBlue]

68. I read about this study last month

Old news.

[Eleanors38]

63. Old stuff. Why re-runs? nt

[Eleanors38]

73. The study has been posted in DU before. It's old. nt

[MicaelS]

75. You really are an extremely nasty person.

Wishing you Karma, and lots of it.

Wishing harm on another DU member is disgusting.

Your posts about, and toward gun owners are filled with nothing but anger, bile, venom, acid and hate.

You read just the like the very late, and very unlamented iverglas.

[polly7]

76. +1,000,000. nt.

[Hoyt]

80. "Anger, bile, . . . . . hate" is also exemplified by one strapping a gun on to venture into public.

Or, accumulating these. Don't you think?

[MicaelS]

81. Only in your mind. n/t

[EX500rider]

88. No, we don't think that. n/t

[Hoyt]

91. Well you should.

[EX500rider]

92. Why? n/t

[otohara]

77. Exactly - People Die ....

Doesn't matter how...except it does.
My neighbor can't shake the image of her 9 year old being shot in the head by her ex.
I can't imagine losing a loved one to a fucking gun, it's not natural.

[NYC_SKP]

87. CDC study ordered by Obama. "Ten Surprising Findings From a New Report on Gun Violence"

The study is available here, for free, unlike, for example, the Bogus study: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/Priorities-for-Research-to-Reduce-the-Threat-of-Firearm-Related-Violence.aspx

Slate put together a good read:

Ten Surprising Findings From a New Report on Gun Violence

The gun control debate is certainly worth reopening. But if we’re going to reopen it, let’s not just rethink the politics. Let’s take another look at the facts. Earlier this year, President Obama ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assess the existing research on gun violence and recommend future studies. That report, prepared by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, is now complete. Its findings won’t entirely please the Obama administration or the NRA, but all of us should consider them.

Here’s a list of the 10 most salient or surprising takeaways.

1. The United States has an indisputable gun violence problem.

2. Most indices of crime and gun violence are getting better, not worse.

3. We have 300 million firearms, but only 100 million are handguns.

4. Handguns are the problem.

5. Mass shootings aren’t the problem.

6. Gun suicide is a bigger killer than gun homicide.

7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively.

8. Carrying guns for self-defense is an arms race.

9. Denying guns to people under restraining orders saves lives.

10. It isn’t true that most gun acquisitions by criminals can be blamed on a few bad dealers.

These conclusions don’t line up perfectly with either side’s agenda. That’s a good reason to take them seriously—and to fund additional data collection and research that have been blocked by Congress over politics. Yes, the facts will surprise you. That’s why you should embrace them.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

It's time for DU members to have an adult conversation about a range of potential helpful measures that can be taken to reduce gun violence.

[EX500rider]

89. "It's time for DU members to have an adult conversation"

Good luck with that...

Don't ya know, all gun owners are filled with "Anger, bile, . . . . . hate"?

[NYC_SKP]

90. Ha!

It's amazing.

Even a casual look at any heated exchange between 2A supporters and ardent foes to gun ownership reveals the relative differences in temperament, on average, between the two groups.