Yet another gun study. By the nice people at UCSF.

All the shit that doesn't fit!
If it doesn't go into the other forums, stick it in here.
A general free for all
rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Yet another gun study. By the nice people at UCSF.

Post by rubato »

This is what the evidence has shown before. Access to guns increases your chance of death.


http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/01/111286 ... e-homicide

Someone with access to firearms is three times more likely to commit suicide and nearly twice as likely to be the victim of a homicide as someone who does not have access, according to a comprehensive review of the scientific literature conducted by researchers at UC San Francisco.

The meta-analysis, published online Jan. 20 in Annals of Internal Medicine, pools results from 15 investigations, slightly more than half of which were done after a 1996 federal law prohibited the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from funding research that could be seen as promoting gun control. The review excluded studies that relied on survey data to estimate gun ownership and focused instead on studies that included more specific information about whether victims had access to guns.

All but two of the studies were done in the United States, where gun ownership is higher than anywhere else in the world and firearms cause an estimated 31,000 deaths each year. The review included studies about deaths by suicide and homicide but not accidental deaths.

Researchers found striking gender differences in the data. When firearms were accessible, men were nearly four times more likely to commit suicide than when firearms were not accessible, while women were almost three times more likely to be victims of homicide.

Andrew Anglemyer, PhD, MPH

“Our analysis shows that having access to firearms is a significant risk factor for men committing suicide and for women being victims of homicide,” said Andrew Anglemyer, PhD, MPH, an expert in study design and data analytics in Clinical Pharmacy and Global Health Sciences at UCSF, who is also a U.S. Army veteran. “Since empirical data suggest that most victims of homicide know their assailants, the higher risk for women strongly indicates domestic violence.”

Firearms play a significant role in both suicide and homicide, accounting for slightly more than half of all suicide deaths and two-thirds of homicide deaths, according to 2009 data from the 16-state National Violent Death Reporting System, which is run by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

About 75 percent of suicides occur in the victims’ homes, and a similar percentage of female homicide victims die in their homes. The figure is about 45 percent for men.

Since not all of the studies assessed whether victims had firearms in their homes, the meta-analysis does not draw conclusions about the associations between suicide or homicide and the location of the firearms, but merely whether victims had access to them.

Researchers adjusted for biases they detected in the original studies, such as failing to account for mental illness, domestic violence or arrest history or inadvertently influencing the reports of victims’ friends and relatives about whether they had access to firearms. But the overall results did not change significantly.

In some cases, such as in the selection of participants for studies on suicide, the bias in the original studies may have underestimated the association between access to firearms and suicide, because both study and comparison groups were recruited from health care settings where they may have been seeking treatment for suicidal planning.

Of the 15 studies included in the meta-analysis, the only one that did not find a statistically meaningful increase in the odds of death associated with access to firearms was from New Zealand, where guns are much less available than they are in the United States. And even that study did find an increase, although not a statistically significant one.

Other authors on the paper include UCSF epidemiology researcher Tara Horvath, MA, and George Rutherford, MD, professor of epidemiology at UCSF. All authors are associated with the Cochrane Collaboration, an international network of independent researchers who evaluate data for the benefit of health care practitioners, policy makers, patients and consumer advocates.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest and did not receive any grant support for their research.

UCSF is a leading university dedicated to promoting health worldwide through advanced biomedical research, graduate-level education in the life sciences and health professions, and excellence in patient care. It includes top-ranked graduate schools of dentistry, medicine, nursing and pharmacy, a graduate division with nationally renowned programs in basic biomedical, translational and population sciences, as well as a preeminent biomedical research enterprise and two top-ranked hospitals, UCSF Medical Center and UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital.

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Yet another gun study. By the nice people at UCSF.

Post by Gob »

You have a gun at home, don't you?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Yet another gun study. By the nice people at UCSF.

Post by Lord Jim »

Yes, he claims he does; a nine millimeter...

Taking rube's posts on the subject in their entirety, rube apparently believes that even though owning a gun makes him "less safe" he's willing to take that risk because of his love of target shooting...

ETA:

Oh wait a moment...

If memory serves me correctly, rube has also said that he has owned a gun in the past, and may do so in the future, he doesn't currently have one....

(A choice no doubt due to the good judgement of Frau Rube...if you were living in the same house with this stumblebum, would you want him within a hundred miles of a firearm?)

Image
Last edited by Lord Jim on Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:54 am, edited 2 times in total.
ImageImageImage

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Yet another gun study. By the nice people at UCSF.

Post by rubato »

Gob wrote:You have a gun at home, don't you?


Not at the moment, but I have in the past and might again in the future. Guns are dangerous and one must acknowledge the truth about that if one is going to have them. Pretending that they make you safer is a stupid lie.


I also have a small chain saw which I freely admit is very dangerous too. 32,000 people are injured every year and the average injury takes 110 stitches to close up.


"Live in the real world and admit the facts." Its a good rule.


yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Yet another gun study. By the nice people at UCSF.

Post by Lord Jim »

Not at the moment, but I have in the past and might again in the future.
My recollection was correct...
ImageImageImage

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Yet another gun study. By the nice people at UCSF.

Post by rubato »

But in the present you are still an ignorant, stupid, moron.

All of the evidence shows that guns are not protective, they are dangerous.

Grow up and join the fact-based world.

Chain saws are dangerous. Guns are dangerous. Stop being a a moron and admit the truth.

yrs,
rubato

Jarlaxle
Posts: 5445
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:21 am
Location: New England

Re: Yet another gun study. By the nice people at UCSF.

Post by Jarlaxle »

My uncle is alive because he carries a gun.

Though in your case, I agree: guns ARE dangerous. You should not be allowed near a gun, or a chainsaw, or a drill press, or a forklift...or anything else more dangerous than a plastic spork.
Treat Gaza like Carthage.

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Yet another gun study. By the nice people at UCSF.

Post by Lord Jim »

I don't know about the sporks Jarl...

He could put an eye out with one of those...
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Yet another gun study. By the nice people at UCSF.

Post by Lord Jim »

Lord Jim wrote:I've been conceding that the data that has been brought to the table here does show a higher likelihood of suicide being committed in households with guns than in households without, (as opposed to the data on homicides, which shows nothing of the sort)

But I've also raised the "chicken or the egg" question about it; ie, do the people get guns because they are suicidal, and that's the method they choose, (if guns weren't available, they'd simply choose something else) or does the presence of a gun in the household somehow make the commission of a suicide more likely?

Seems I was right to raise this question; the statistics on suicide rates between countries shows absolutely no correlation between suicide rates and the relative ease with which one can obtain a firearm in any country.

At this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... icide_rate

You will see a table ranking the suicide rate per 100,000 of population for 107 countries. (Given the table pasting formating challenges on the forum, there ain't no way I'm going to take the time to copy and paste it all)

The US ranks 34th. Several countries with much stronger gun control laws rank higher (again, all numbers per 100,000 of population) Japan, (some of the toughest gun control laws in the free world) 21.9, France 15.0, New Zealand, 13.2, Austria, 12.8....

The US comes in at 12.0, but right behind us are tough gun law countries Sweden and Denmark, (each at 11.9) Ireland and the UK (both 11.8) and Canada and Iceland at 11.3....


Now, there are many factors that that go into explaining suicide rates, social, cultural, economic, etc, (for example, it's logical to assume that one of the reasons the rate is so high in Japan is related to the whole "face" and "shame" thing...)

But these numbers pretty conclusively demonstrate is that the relative availability of firearms isn't one of those factors...
If you follow that link rube, you'll see it's a pretty simple chart; just a few columns...

Which of course means it will be way too complicated for you to be able to read or understand, but perhaps you can find someone to explain it to you...
Last edited by Lord Jim on Mon Feb 24, 2014 4:35 am, edited 2 times in total.
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 15478
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: Yet another gun study. By the nice people at UCSF.

Post by Joe Guy »

Why should anyone be concerned with deaths related to gun ownership?

Cigarettes kill people. They were invented by Republicans and only morons smoke them.

yrs,

staccato

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Yet another gun study. By the nice people at UCSF.

Post by rubato »

Joe Guy wrote:Why should anyone be concerned with deaths related to gun ownership?

Cigarettes kill people. They were invented by Republicans and only morons smoke them.

yrs,

staccato

You should look up the meanings of words before you use them. Although crude satire like this cannot be improved very much you can avoid looking like a pure idiot.


yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Yet another gun study. By the nice people at UCSF.

Post by Lord Jim »

you can avoid looking like a pure idiot.
A skill you have never mastered...


And personally I hope you never do, rube...

It's your congenital inability to avoid looking like a pure idiot that makes you so damn entertaining... :lol:
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 15478
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: Yet another gun study. By the nice people at UCSF.

Post by Joe Guy »

rubato wrote:You should look up the meanings of words before you use them.
There's nothing difficult to understand there for anyone other than a moron. I'm sorry if I used too many syllables for you.

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Yet another gun study. By the nice people at UCSF.

Post by rubato »

Well there is the meaning of the word "staccato" which has escaped both of you completely:
Staccato
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Staccato (disambiguation).
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2009)
Staccato.
Diatonic scale on C, staccato. About this sound Play (help·info)

Staccato (Italian for "detached") is a form of musical articulation. In modern notation it signifies a note of shortened duration,[1][2] separated from the note that may follow by silence.[3] It has been described by theorists and appeared in music since the 18th century.

Notation

In 20th-century music, a dot placed above or below a note indicates that it should be played staccato, and a wedge is used for the more emphatic staccatissimo. However, before 1850, dots, dashes, and wedges were all likely to have the same meaning, even though some theorists from as early as the 1750s distinguished different degrees of staccato through the use of dots and dashes, with the dash indicating a shorter, sharper note, and the dot a longer, lighter one. A number of signs came to be used in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to discriminate more subtle nuances of staccato. These signs involve various combinations of dots, vertical and horizontal dashes, vertical and horizontal wedges, and the like, but attempts to standardize these signs have not generally been successful.[4] This does not, however, alter the rhythm of the music and the remainder of the time allotted for each staccato note is played as rest. The opposite musical articulation of staccato is legato, signifying long and continuous notes.[5]

The scope of the staccato dot:

examples

In the first measure, the pairs of notes are in the same musical part since they are on a common stem. The staccato applies to both notes of the pairs. In the second measure, the pairs of notes are stemmed separately indicating two different parts, so the staccato applies only to the upper note.

A dot indicating staccato articulation is not to be confused with a dotted note.

Playing staccato is the opposite of playing legato. A staccato passage for strings is by definition a bowed rather than a pizzicato technique, though pizzicato itself might be thought of as a kind of staccato effect. For example, Leroy Anderson's Jazz Legato/Jazz Pizzicato. There is an intermediate articulation called either mezzo staccato or non-legato.

I LOVE it when jackasses like the two of you try to appear cogent. You always fail. You can't help yourselves.

yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 15478
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: Yet another gun study. By the nice people at UCSF.

Post by Joe Guy »

rubato wrote:I LOVE it when jackasses like the two of you try to appear cogent. You always fail. You can't help yourselves.
The funniest thing about this is that you seem to be serious - and you actually had to look it up... :D Here you go, Einstein -

Staccato: short and not sounding connected

(like you)

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21506
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Yet another gun study. By the nice people at UCSF.

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

For other uses, see Staccato (disambiguation).
Evidently rubato missed a link
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Big RR
Posts: 14932
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Yet another gun study. By the nice people at UCSF.

Post by Big RR »

Back to the OP; guns are definitely dangerous when handled incorrectly (or when what you plan to do with them is not thought out) as are chain saws and many other tools. However, when handled correctly they can clearly accomplish much, including protection of oneself and others (ask any police officer or soldier if you doubt that). Sure, many people who have guns don't know how to handle them, and many who think it would be easy to shoot an intruder find out differently when faced with the situation (all it takes is a second or two of hesitation for the intruder to get the gun away from you, and most intruders won't hesitate to shoot), but that is not the fault of the gun. Likewise, someone bent on suicide may well act impulsively if they have access to the gun, but again I can't blame the gun for that (anymore than I can blame the chainsaw for the guy who has the tree he cuts fall on him).

dgs49
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Yet another gun study. By the nice people at UCSF.

Post by dgs49 »

Guns are a convenient way to commit suicide, if one is inclined that way. But the total number of suicides is unknowable, because presumably many who commit suicide don't want it to be known that they offed themselves (insurance reasons, social stigma, etc). I personally intend to end it in a one-vehicle motorcycle crash (though not soon). There is an obsolete bridge abutment near my house that would be ideal for such an accident.

Also, it is unknowable how many homicides, robberies, and other ad hominem crimes that are avoided by the presence of a gun or the perceived threat of a gun. An intended victim may not even be aware that some would-be mugger or rapist was frightened off when he spied a semi-concealed shoulder holster.

With these obvious facts in mind, one has to wonder about the authenticity of a "scientist" who would publish data that purport to prove that, "Someone with access to firearms is three times more likely to commit suicide..." This statistic is literally nonsense, as it presumes that all suicides are known to have been suicides.

Bullshit "science" from a gun-grabber.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21506
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Yet another gun study. By the nice people at UCSF.

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

"Someone with access to firearms is three times more likely to commit suicide..."
It doesn't sound quite right, does it dgs? But not, I think, for some bogus reasoning that "not all suicides are recognised as suicides". That surely presupposes that "unknown" suicides must equal or outnumber known suicides by gun in order to warp the numbers? (And surely you can't be serious in claiming that you know significant numbers of suicides are not identified - how do you know, if they are unidentified? This is a claim from ignorance - "we don't know if there are any so there must be a lot").

Fred just drove into town, parked his car in the basement of the tallest building available, went up to see the view and then (somehow - who knows how?) accidentally climbed over the fence and fell to his death. Mary was found this a.m. hanging from a light fixture - apparently she was changing a light bulb and somehow (who knows how?) accidentally kicked the chair away and became entangled in the electric wire. Leslie accidentally died today with her head in the oven - she was cleaning it when she was somehow overcome (who knows how?) by gas...which is odd because it was an electric oven.

No, I think it's more likely that a suicidal person will gain access to firearms in order to accidentally shoot themselves in the head - three times more likely than seeking out other ways, such as using the bread knife to do a bit of sepuku. I wonder what the stats are for accidental knife fatalities by dyslexics who were wondering what this sudoku craze was all about?

Of course it could also mean that suicidal people are more likely to purchase/find a gun than to not purchase/find a gun. Or that gun-owners are more likely to be depressive failures. Or that ... well there's all kinds of factors but not, IMO, that "we don't know X so therefore X must be the case".

To me this all boils down to - people with guns are more likely to use guns than people without guns. So uhhh yeah - gun ownership can be dangerous for someone. Ya gotta love science!
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11667
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Yet another gun study. By the nice people at UCSF.

Post by Crackpot »

Then again how many accidental overdoses are indeed accidental?
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

Post Reply