When all cancers are cured there'll be massive fund-raising campaigns to deal with America's overpopulation crisis.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The largest study of gun violence in the United States, released Thursday afternoon, confirms a point that should be obvious: widespread American gun ownership is fueling Americas gun violence epidemic.
The study, by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University and two coauthors, has been peer-reviewed and is forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health. Siegel and his colleagues compiled data on firearm homicides from all 50 states from 1981-2010, the longest stretch of time ever studied in this fashion, and set about seeing whether they could find any relationship between changes in gun ownership and murder using guns over time.
Since we know that violent crime rates overall declined during that period of time, the authors used something called fixed effect regression to account for any national trend other than changes in gun ownership. They also employed the largest-ever number of statistical controls for other variables in this kind of gun study: age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted nonfirearm homicide rate, incarceration rate,and suicide rate were all accounted for.
No good data on national rates of gun ownership exist (partly because of the NRAs stranglehold on Congress), so the authors used the percentage of suicides that involve a firearm (FS/S) as a proxy. The theory, backed up by a wealth of data, is that the more guns there are any in any one place, the higher the percentage of people who commit suicide with guns as opposed to other mechanisms will be.
With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership, Siegel et al. found, firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.
To put this in perspective, take the state of Mississippi. All other factors being equal, the authors write, our model would predict that if the FS/S in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower. Since 475 people were murdered with a gun in Mississippi in 2010, that drop in gun ownership would translate to 80 lives saved in that year alone.
Of course, the authors dont find that rates of gun ownership explain all of Americas gun violence epidemic: race, economic inequality and generally violent areas all contribute to an areas propensity for gun deaths, suggesting that broader social inequality, not gun ownership alone, contributes to the gun violence epidemic. Nevertheless, the fact that gun ownership mattered even when race and poverty were accounted for suggests that we cant avoid talking about Americas fascination with guns when debating what to do about the roughly 11,000 Americans who are yearly murdered by gunfire.
Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder | ThinkProgress
I only own a gun because a full cop doesn't fit in my nightstand.
I don't call cops.
The largest study of gun violence in the United States, released Thursday afternoon, confirms a point that should be obvious: widespread American gun ownership is fueling Americas gun violence epidemic.
The study, by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University and two coauthors, has been peer-reviewed and is forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health. Siegel and his colleagues compiled data on firearm homicides from all 50 states from 1981-2010, the longest stretch of time ever studied in this fashion, and set about seeing whether they could find any relationship between changes in gun ownership and murder using guns over time.
Since we know that violent crime rates overall declined during that period of time, the authors used something called fixed effect regression to account for any national trend other than changes in gun ownership. They also employed the largest-ever number of statistical controls for other variables in this kind of gun study: age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted nonfirearm homicide rate, incarceration rate,and suicide rate were all accounted for.
No good data on national rates of gun ownership exist (partly because of the NRAs stranglehold on Congress), so the authors used the percentage of suicides that involve a firearm (FS/S) as a proxy. The theory, backed up by a wealth of data, is that the more guns there are any in any one place, the higher the percentage of people who commit suicide with guns as opposed to other mechanisms will be.
With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership, Siegel et al. found, firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.
To put this in perspective, take the state of Mississippi. All other factors being equal, the authors write, our model would predict that if the FS/S in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower. Since 475 people were murdered with a gun in Mississippi in 2010, that drop in gun ownership would translate to 80 lives saved in that year alone.
Of course, the authors dont find that rates of gun ownership explain all of Americas gun violence epidemic: race, economic inequality and generally violent areas all contribute to an areas propensity for gun deaths, suggesting that broader social inequality, not gun ownership alone, contributes to the gun violence epidemic. Nevertheless, the fact that gun ownership mattered even when race and poverty were accounted for suggests that we cant avoid talking about Americas fascination with guns when debating what to do about the roughly 11,000 Americans who are yearly murdered by gunfire.
Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder | ThinkProgress
I read until 'epidemic', since that's a blatant lie, I didn't bother with the rest of it, knowing it's nothing but lies.
North Carolina is an open carry stateIf ya love guns and gun ownership, if you believe that the easy access to guns is a good thing?
Move to FLORIDA.
Everybody seems not only to own guns but also has the right to carry there.
Here's a state-by-state- thumbnail of crime stats.
Basically when I look at this I don't see a whole lot of support that guns make us safe or unsafe.
What I see is correlations with other factors like poverty urban v rural and (gotta admit it) race numbers effecting crime.
Crime Rate by State, 2011 | Infoplease.com
If ya love guns and gun ownership, if you believe that the easy access to guns is a good thing?
Move to FLORIDA.
Everybody seems not only to own guns but also has the right to carry there.
Here's a state-by-state- thumbnail of crime stats.
Basically when I look at this I don't see a whole lot of support that guns make us safe or unsafe.
What I see is correlations with other factors like poverty urban v rural and (gotta admit it) race numbers effecting crime.
Crime Rate by State, 2011 | Infoplease.com
If ya love guns and gun ownership, if you believe that the easy access to guns is a good thing?
Move to FLORIDA.
Everybody seems not only to own guns but also has the right to carry there.
Here's a state-by-state- thumbnail of crime stats.
Basically when I look at this I don't see a whole lot of support that guns make us safe or unsafe.
What I see is correlations with other factors like poverty urban v rural and (gotta admit it) race numbers effecting crime.
Crime Rate by State, 2011 | Infoplease.com
The largest study of gun violence in the United States, released Thursday afternoon, confirms a point that should be obvious: widespread American gun ownership is fueling Americas gun violence epidemic.
The study, by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University and two coauthors, has been peer-reviewed and is forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health. Siegel and his colleagues compiled data on firearm homicides from all 50 states from 1981-2010, the longest stretch of time ever studied in this fashion, and set about seeing whether they could find any relationship between changes in gun ownership and murder using guns over time.
Since we know that violent crime rates overall declined during that period of time, the authors used something called fixed effect regression to account for any national trend other than changes in gun ownership. They also employed the largest-ever number of statistical controls for other variables in this kind of gun study: age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted nonfirearm homicide rate, incarceration rate,and suicide rate were all accounted for.
No good data on national rates of gun ownership exist (partly because of the NRAs stranglehold on Congress), so the authors used the percentage of suicides that involve a firearm (FS/S) as a proxy. The theory, backed up by a wealth of data, is that the more guns there are any in any one place, the higher the percentage of people who commit suicide with guns as opposed to other mechanisms will be.
With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership, Siegel et al. found, firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.
To put this in perspective, take the state of Mississippi. All other factors being equal, the authors write, our model would predict that if the FS/S in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower. Since 475 people were murdered with a gun in Mississippi in 2010, that drop in gun ownership would translate to 80 lives saved in that year alone.
Of course, the authors dont find that rates of gun ownership explain all of Americas gun violence epidemic: race, economic inequality and generally violent areas all contribute to an areas propensity for gun deaths, suggesting that broader social inequality, not gun ownership alone, contributes to the gun violence epidemic. Nevertheless, the fact that gun ownership mattered even when race and poverty were accounted for suggests that we cant avoid talking about Americas fascination with guns when debating what to do about the roughly 11,000 Americans who are yearly murdered by gunfire.
Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder | ThinkProgress
The largest study of gun violence in the United States, released Thursday afternoon, confirms a point that should be obvious: widespread American gun ownership is fueling Americas gun violence epidemic.
The study, by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University and two coauthors, has been peer-reviewed and is forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health. Siegel and his colleagues compiled data on firearm homicides from all 50 states from 1981-2010, the longest stretch of time ever studied in this fashion, and set about seeing whether they could find any relationship between changes in gun ownership and murder using guns over time.
Since we know that violent crime rates overall declined during that period of time, the authors used something called fixed effect regression to account for any national trend other than changes in gun ownership. They also employed the largest-ever number of statistical controls for other variables in this kind of gun study: age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted nonfirearm homicide rate, incarceration rate,and suicide rate were all accounted for.
No good data on national rates of gun ownership exist (partly because of the NRAs stranglehold on Congress), so the authors used the percentage of suicides that involve a firearm (FS/S) as a proxy. The theory, backed up by a wealth of data, is that the more guns there are any in any one place, the higher the percentage of people who commit suicide with guns as opposed to other mechanisms will be.
With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership, Siegel et al. found, firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.
To put this in perspective, take the state of Mississippi. All other factors being equal, the authors write, our model would predict that if the FS/S in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower. Since 475 people were murdered with a gun in Mississippi in 2010, that drop in gun ownership would translate to 80 lives saved in that year alone.
Of course, the authors dont find that rates of gun ownership explain all of Americas gun violence epidemic: race, economic inequality and generally violent areas all contribute to an areas propensity for gun deaths, suggesting that broader social inequality, not gun ownership alone, contributes to the gun violence epidemic. Nevertheless, the fact that gun ownership mattered even when race and poverty were accounted for suggests that we cant avoid talking about Americas fascination with guns when debating what to do about the roughly 11,000 Americans who are yearly murdered by gunfire.
Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder | ThinkProgress
What value a life when government pays to have babies murdered?
The largest study of gun violence in the United States, released Thursday afternoon, confirms a point that should be obvious: widespread American gun ownership is fueling America’s gun violence epidemic.
The study, by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University and two coauthors, has been peer-reviewed and is forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health. Siegel and his colleagues compiled data on firearm homicides from all 50 states from 1981-2010, the longest stretch of time ever studied in this fashion, and set about seeing whether they could find any relationship between changes in gun ownership and murder using guns over time.
Since we know that violent crime rates overall declined during that period of time, the authors used something called “fixed effect regression” to account for any national trend other than changes in gun ownership. They also employed the largest-ever number of statistical controls for other variables in this kind of gun study: “age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted nonfirearm homicide rate, incarceration rate,and suicide rate” were all accounted for.
No good data on national rates of gun ownership exist (partly because of the NRA’s stranglehold on Congress), so the authors used the percentage of suicides that involve a firearm (FS/S) as a proxy. The theory, backed up by a wealth of data, is that the more guns there are any in any one place, the higher the percentage of people who commit suicide with guns as opposed to other mechanisms will be.
With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.
To put this in perspective, take the state of Mississippi. “All other factors being equal,” the authors write, “our model would predict that if the FS/S in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower.” Since 475 people were murdered with a gun in Mississippi in 2010, that drop in gun ownership would translate to 80 lives saved in that year alone.
Of course, the authors don’t find that rates of gun ownership explain all of America’s gun violence epidemic: race, economic inequality and generally violent areas all contribute to an area’s propensity for gun deaths, suggesting that broader social inequality, not gun ownership alone, contributes to the gun violence epidemic. Nevertheless, the fact that gun ownership mattered even when race and poverty were accounted for suggests that we can’t avoid talking about America’s fascination with guns when debating what to do about the roughly 11,000 Americans who are yearly murdered by gunfire.
Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder | ThinkProgress
It does no such thing.
Yesterday the Annals of Internal Medicine published a meta-analysis of 15 studies that aimed to measure the relationship between gun ownership and the risk of suicide or homicide. Over all, University of California at San Francisco epidemiologist Andrew Anglemyer and his two co-authors found, people with access to guns were about three times as likely to kill themselves and about twice as likely to be killed as people without such access. The Daily Beast's Brandy Zadrozny says Anglemyer et al.'s study "has seemingly put an end to the debate" over whether owning a gun makes people more or less safe, "at least in terms of suicide and homicide." Not quite. Like the underlying studies, almost all of which started with suicide or homicide cases and matched them to "controls," the meta-analysis cannot tell us whether the observed relationships are causal and, if so, in which direction the causation runs. "Whether the presence of a firearm among case patients is the result of environmental characteristics or living conditions is unclear," the authors observe. "For example, some persons may purchase a firearm for protection because of neighborhood crime." If so, that same high crime rate would increase their chances of being killed, whether or not they owned guns. Similarly, a woman might buy a gun to protect herself against an abusive boyfriend or husband. If he ends up killing her, that does not necessarily mean buying the gun made her less safe. Rather, it was her vulnerability to violence that motivated her to buy the gun.
That scenario seems especially relevant given that Anglemyer and his colleagues found the risk of homicide victimization associated with owning a gun was much higher for women than for men. Among men, the additional risk was just 29 percent, while for women it was 184 percent. Suicide risk, by contrast, was somewhat higher for men than for women, for whom the additional risk associated with access to a gun was not statistically significant.
Does the Latest Study Finally Show That Owning a Gun Makes You Less Safe? - Hit & Run : Reason.com
Now that I have proved I can throw around quotes lets find out who can actually think.
Defend the study on the basis that guns in violent neighborhoods attract criminals.
What value a life when government pays to have babies murdered?
You're speaking of the 55 million, of the most innocent of human life which have been murdered in the US, by people who were solely responsible for them, having conceived them through their own wanton and willful behavior?
What value a life when government pays to have babies murdered?
You're speaking of the 55 million, of the most innocent of human life which have been murdered in the US, by people who were solely responsible for them, having conceived them through their own wanton and willful behavior?
This does not address the MEN who also agreed to participate in sex without responsibility for the pregnancy, or costs of children, or the coercion put on women economically or sexually.
Until you address the MALE factor in the unwanted pregnancy and abortion debates, the legislation is always biased towards burdening the women unequally and is thus contested.
For example, what if laws were passed holding MEN EQUALLY responsible for a lesser degree of statutory rape or relationship abuse, for any act of sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy, children or abortion? What if the burden were put on MEN instead of women?
How would that change the equation and focus on prevention the abuse of sex without commitment or ability to pay for children if conceived?
What value a life when government pays to have babies murdered?
You're speaking of the 55 million, of the most innocent of human life which have been murdered in the US, by people who were solely responsible for them, having conceived them through their own wanton and willful behavior?
This does not address the MEN who also agreed to participate in sex without responsibility for the pregnancy, or costs of children, or the coercion put on women economically or sexually.
Until you address the MALE factor in the unwanted pregnancy and abortion debates, the legislation is always biased towards burdening the women unequally and is thus contested.
For example, what if laws were passed holding MEN EQUALLY responsible for a lesser degree of statutory rape or relationship abuse, for any act of sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy, children or abortion? What if the burden were put on MEN instead of women?
How would that change the equation and focus on prevention the abuse of sex without commitment or ability to pay for children if conceived?