kallend 1,672
Recommended Posts
rushmc 18
QuoteMore guns more deaths:
Social Science & Medicine
Volume 64, Issue 3, February 2007, Pages 656-664
State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001–2003
Matthew Miller, a, , David Hemenwaya, and Deborah Azraela,
Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
Abstract
Two of every three American homicide victims are killed with firearms, yet little is known about the role played by household firearms in homicide victimization. The present study is the first to examine the cross sectional association between household firearm ownership and homicide victimization across the 50 US states, by age and gender, using nationally representative state-level survey-based estimates of household firearm ownership. Household firearm prevalence for each of the 50 states was obtained from the 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Homicide mortality data for each state were aggregated over the three-year study period, 2001–2003. Analyses controlled for state-level rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, per capita alcohol consumption, and a resource deprivation index (a construct that includes median family income, the percentage of families living beneath the poverty line, the Gini index of family income inequality, the percentage of the population that is black and the percentage of families headed by a single female parent). Multivariate analyses found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates of men, women and children. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide victimization in our study was driven by gun-related homicide victimization rates; non-gun-related victimization rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership. Although causal inference is not warranted on the basis of the present study alone, our findings suggest that the household may be an important source of firearms used to kill men, women and children in the United States.
Keywords: Homicide; Firearms; Guns; Violence; Epidemiology; USA
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 617 432 1459.
States within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide was driven by gun-related homicide rates; non-gun-related homicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership.
You "assume"I have never seen the data behind these highly misleading claims before. You can save it for somebody who has not
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
SkyDekker 1,150
QuoteActually, you made a proposal to wipe away a founding principle of this country - the presumption of innocence.
Bullshit, the US certainly has reverse burdens.
SkyDekker 1,150
QuoteI have a good example of what a deterrent is.
Who would any of you rather attempt a home invasion on if you were a criminal?
1. My house?
2. Kallends House?
Now given the opinion of some of the less learned amongst us, I should be a more desireable target of home invasion because of the fact that I own several high value, and higly effective firearms.
Now why is it that people would choose to invade a home where they know guns are either locked up or unloaded and not ready for immediate useage?
Case in point is that Kallend was once a cop, does that deter a criminal from invading his home and assaulting his SO?
I am just an old, broken down, has been, or never was, so why would a criminal think twice about attacking my home, or loved ones?
Please post a clear and concise response, not a veiled attack, or a cut n paste of someone elses words, found somewhere on the web.
If I knew you had lots of guns and I really wanted to steal something from you, why wouldn't I just kill you first?
QuoteQuoteActually, you made a proposal to wipe away a founding principle of this country - the presumption of innocence.
Bullshit, the US certainly has reverse burdens.
Feel free to give examples in criminal law. The closest is the seizure of property, which I consider unconstitutional as well.
QuoteYou "assume"I have never seen the data behind these highly misleading claims before. You can save it for somebody who has not
He certainly appears to be hiding behind the summaries. He's posted the same ones over and over to make it seem significant.
Quote
If I knew you had lots of guns and I really wanted to steal something from you, why wouldn't I just kill you first?
Because attacking armed victims sometimes get you killed? Why not find someone easier instead? Criminals still have rational thought, and being criminals tend toward the path of least resistance. (otherwise, they might have jobs)
You have a movie version of reality where you can just walk up and kill someone, and not be vunerable to a response.
SkyDekker 1,150
QuoteBecause attacking armed victims sometimes get you killed? Why not find someone easier instead? Criminals still have rational thought, and being criminals tend toward the path of least resistance. (otherwise, they might have jobs)
You have a movie version of reality where you can just walk up and kill someone, and not be vunerable to a response.
Funny you should mention that. One of the arguments from the pro-gun side is that even if guns where not available people will use knives, bombs etc to kill eachother.
But, you just indicated that criminals tend toward the path of least resitance. Killing somebody with a knife or a bomb or poison is significantly harder than killing somebody with a gun.
Quote
Funny you should mention that. One of the arguments from the pro-gun side is that even if guns where not available people will use knives, bombs etc to kill eachother.
But, you just indicated that criminals tend toward the path of least resitance. Killing somebody with a knife or a bomb or poison is significantly harder than killing somebody with a gun.
You just accused Rich of being squirmy, switching topics on the fly. Yet here you jump from burglary to targetted murder.
Criminals will use guns when they're available. They are available. And criminals will gravitate toward victims who cannot resist. Leads to the obvious conclusion that individuals are best off arming themselves.
SkyDekker 1,150
QuoteCriminals will use guns when they're available. They are available.
Right, I agree, so when less guns and/or ammunition is available would from that not flow that less criminals will use them?
pop 0
QuoteQuoteCriminals will use guns when they're available. They are available.
Right, I agree, so when less guns and/or ammunition is available would from that not flow that less criminals will use them?
Yes, and also the more guns you take off the market, the more expensive they become for the criminal attmepting to purchase one illegally.
7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer
QuoteQuoteCriminals will use guns when they're available. They are available.
Right, I agree, so when less guns and/or ammunition is available would from that not flow that less criminals will use them?
You'll never get down to the level of inavailability that would make a difference. The UK banned them outright, and still have millions of them. The US has 250-300M of them, and these are durable goods. So even with a flat out ban (and crapping on the Bill of Rights), you're looking at 2-3 generations before it makes a difference.
pop 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteCriminals will use guns when they're available. They are available.
Right, I agree, so when less guns and/or ammunition is available would from that not flow that less criminals will use them?
You'll never get down to the level of inavailability that would make a difference. The UK banned them outright, and still have millions of them. The US has 250-300M of them, and these are durable goods. So even with a flat out ban (and crapping on the Bill of Rights), you're looking at 2-3 generations before it makes a difference.
If you see it taking 2 to 3 generations to make a difference, I say we start now rather than later.
7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer
QuoteDoes anyone really believe that there may have been something in that home being burglarized that was worth the lives of two humans?
The two humans that broke into the home obviously did.
Lesson of the day: If you don't want to run the risk of getting shot, don't break into people's homes, especially in TX.
QuoteQuote
You'll never get down to the level of inavailability that would make a difference. The UK banned them outright, and still have millions of them. The US has 250-300M of them, and these are durable goods. So even with a flat out ban (and crapping on the Bill of Rights), you're looking at 2-3 generations before it makes a difference.
If you see it taking 2 to 3 generations to make a difference, I say we start now rather than later.
Whereas I'm not interested in sacrificing those generations (of which we are members) in the vain hope it will make a big difference.
Queue up Ben Franklin (loosely translated) - those fools who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve a ticket out of here.
kallend 1,672
Quote
You "assume"I have never seen the data behind these highly misleading claims before. You can save it for somebody who has not
Maybe you'll enlighten us about what is misleading. The data are pretty firmly based in FACT.
States and nations with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun deaths. FACT.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
SkyDekker 1,150
QuoteQueue up Ben Franklin (loosely translated) - those fools who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve a ticket out of here.
But you have been doing that for decades, if not centuries. Hiding behind that now is a little dishonest.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
You "assume"I have never seen the data behind these highly misleading claims before. You can save it for somebody who has not
Maybe you'll enlighten us about what is misleading. The data are pretty firmly based in FACT.
States and nations with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun deaths. FACT.
Neither assertation provides proof that the sole factor for the higher death rate is the availability of guns. FACT.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 1,672
QuoteQuoteQuote
You "assume"I have never seen the data behind these highly misleading claims before. You can save it for somebody who has not
Maybe you'll enlighten us about what is misleading. The data are pretty firmly based in FACT.
States and nations with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun deaths. FACT.
Neither assertation provides proof that the sole factor for the higher death rate is the availability of guns. FACT.
Feel free to delude yourself that guns make society safer.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Social Science & Medicine
Volume 64, Issue 3, February 2007, Pages 656-664
State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001–2003
Matthew Miller, a, , David Hemenwaya, and Deborah Azraela,
Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
Abstract
Two of every three American homicide victims are killed with firearms, yet little is known about the role played by household firearms in homicide victimization. The present study is the first to examine the cross sectional association between household firearm ownership and homicide victimization across the 50 US states, by age and gender, using nationally representative state-level survey-based estimates of household firearm ownership. Household firearm prevalence for each of the 50 states was obtained from the 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Homicide mortality data for each state were aggregated over the three-year study period, 2001–2003. Analyses controlled for state-level rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, per capita alcohol consumption, and a resource deprivation index (a construct that includes median family income, the percentage of families living beneath the poverty line, the Gini index of family income inequality, the percentage of the population that is black and the percentage of families headed by a single female parent). Multivariate analyses found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates of men, women and children. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide victimization in our study was driven by gun-related homicide victimization rates; non-gun-related victimization rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership. Although causal inference is not warranted on the basis of the present study alone, our findings suggest that the household may be an important source of firearms used to kill men, women and children in the United States.
Keywords: Homicide; Firearms; Guns; Violence; Epidemiology; USA
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 617 432 1459.
States within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide was driven by gun-related homicide rates; non-gun-related homicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites