Stricter Firearms Laws = Safer States?

[MaverickNH]

The burden of firearm violence in the United States: stricter laws result in safer states

CONCLUSIONS:
States without SFL [Strict firearms Laws] have higher firearm related injury rates, higher firearm related mortality rate, and significant potential years of life lost compared to SFL states.

They classified States as having Strict Firearms Laws based on Brady Score in 2011 and used hospital admissions data for firearms injuries to correlate Strict Firearms Laws with Firearms Injuries.

What they found:

In States with Strict Firearms Laws (SFL) 25% of firearms injury admissions were White, while in States with no-SFL 48% were White. That is, in SFL "Safe States", 75% of firearms injury admissions were Black vs 52% Black in "Non-Safe States".

Suicide and Unintentional Injury from Firearms was higher in Non-SFL States, but Firearms Injury from Assault was higher in States with SFL (which they did not mention).

So more Blacks show up in Emergency Rooms with Firearms Injuries from Assault in States with Stricter Firearms Laws, but they conclude that States with non-Strict Firearms Laws are less safe. NOT highlighting this is rather Racist, as their conclusion favors defining as "Safe States" those where fewer Whites suffer firearms injuries by accident or suicide but more Blacks are shot in Assaults.

Junks Science at its best!

 

[GM-GUY]

John Lott is the go to guy on this, uses real data, no fake or massaged. Glenn Beck also wrote a book 'Control' that has many facts with citations.

 

[Mesatchornug]

a couple points points (only skimmed so far, will read shortly)
1) that's just demographic info; the remaining demographic other than "white" would be "non-white".
2) their firearm injury and mortality rates seem to derive from total population of trauma admissions. This is a questionable basis since different communities have different thresholds fo going to the hospital; far better would be state populations, but who am I to judge. something they fail to note is that smaller populations are affected more quickly by a single event; e.g. MA has ~4x the population of NH, so a single event in NH has a notably larger effect than the same in MA. Since most SFL states are also high-population this will skew the math
3) if you want to get into using their own numbers against them, the "mechanism of injury" stat is your best bet - this is where we see that the overwhelming majority of cases in SFL locales are Assault (69% vs 40% in Non-SFL). That is, "violence," as commonly understood, is rather strongly correlated with SFL.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Increasing firearms violence has resulted in a stronger drive to. . .

Right there. SENTENCE ONE! They show their ass. Firearms violence is NOT increasing. They had an agenda, they looked for data to fit that agenda. They squeezed it to be sure. And then published it.

They use hospital data only. They find statistically Unremarkable comparisons. (2.1/1K, +/- 1.4. I'm sorry, what??? Your margin of error is 67% of your #???? Don't you find that statistically unreliable??? And hell, I passed college Stats about 30 years ago and I know this!

What a horrific study. It isn't fake news. It's NON news.

 

[Horrible]

Hold on. THEY ARE ONLY TAKING ABOUT LESS INJURIES FROM GUNZ!!

You are NOT safer if you are more likely to get stabbed or beaten to death!!

Need to go by the VIOLENT CRIME RATES! And STOP falling into their "Gun Violence" fallacy. THEY USE THIS B/C THEIR ARGUMENTS DON'T HOLD UP AGAINST VIOLENT CRIME RATES!

Look at ME, VT, and NH relative to MA. You are 3 X more likely to be a victim of violent crime in MA than in those 3 other states that border MA!!!

The people of this nation are being played by bullshit like this!!

 

[Kevin_NH]

The authors betray their political bias on the first page. Then they go on to use the "Brady Scorecard" to assign scores to each state, just in case we didn't already recognize the preordained nature of this paper.

Hold on. THEY ARE ONLY TAKING ABOUT LESS INJURIES FROM GUNZ!! You are NOT safer if you are more likely to get stabbed or beaten to death!!

Exactly -- they correlate Strict Firearms Laws with Firearms Injuries/deaths/suicides, ignore substitution and other factors, and don't even try to talk to them about defensive use.

Look at ME, VT, and NH relative to MA. You are 3 X more likely to be a victim of violent crime in MA than in those 3 other states that border MA!!!

In their mind, violent crime only counts when it is "gun" crime.

Note how these studies carefully avoid talking about Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire when trying to correlate stricter laws with "safer" states. Or they pad their numbers with hunting injuries and firearms suicides.

Overall violent crime by state:
MA 39/10K
NH 20
ME 13
VT 12

 

[weekendracer]

Overall violent crime by state:
MA 39/10K
NH 20
ME 13
VT 12

They need to break it down by population density. Like here, if you live in Orleans Parish, I absolutely agree with those numbers, but if you live in West Jefferson Parish or Kenner, not so much. I'm not afraid to go anywhere in Metairie or Kenner at night, downtown New Orleans won't catch me dead there unless I'm paid and armed.

To say the obvious, crime is rampant in mainly high density populations with low socioeconomic status, does not fit the narrative anymore than any other observation you can make from those same stats.

 

[Uzi2]

Stricter Firearms Laws = Safer States?

The lie that keeps on giving!!

 

[gunofthrones]

Stricker gun law = profit

 

[Uzi2]

Stricker gun law = profit

Yes, profit for politicians, and lawyers.