Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,729 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So says a Harvard School of Public Health study.

American states where more people own guns have higher murder rates, including murders of children, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health reported on Thursday.
Wonder if they controlled for race or any factors other than guns?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
Harvard School of Public Health Received a $700,000 grant for 2 years from the Joyce Foundation.

I wonder if that had any influence on this "study"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
First off, lets be careful about blaming the researcher, or

"Wow, did the liberal media come across something they could pervert into being anti-gun? Again."

Harvard Gazette:
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002 ... enway.html

HARVARD GAZETTE ARCHIVES

In the crosshairs:
After the gun study
The acerbic e-mails began a few days after the School of Public Health's (SPH) David Hemenway published "Firearm Availability and Female Homicide Victimization Rates among 25 Populous High Income Countries" in the Journal of the American Medical Women's Association (JAMWA) last month. The paper caught the attention of a small group of people, many of whom peppered Hemenway with sometimes unsigned and often scathing e-mails.

"Way to go genius," wrote one person, who did not identify him- or herself beyond initials, "Learn to read what you read, instead of reading what you want to read, and you'll realize you're an idiot."

The JAMWA experience reveals a side of scientific publishing not often spoken about - one where a researcher is personally targeted because of a study's results.

Hemenway was lead author of the JAMWA study, which found that Americans make up 70 percent of all women murdered in industrialized nations. Furthermore, the study said that U.S. women are 11 times more likely to die from a firearm injury than women in other wealthy countries. In a press release that accompanied the study's publication, Hemenway pointed out that a cross-sectional study such as his cannot prove causation. Nevertheless, the study results are consistent with others that indicate a gun is an important risk factor for female homicide.

"It's hard to believe that no one had looked at this before," said Hemenway. "Seventy percent is an astounding figure."

News of the JAMWA study triggered two dozen e-mails to Hemenway.

"People get very emotional about gun-related issues," he said. "They end up getting angry at the messenger."

He added, "What's strange is that none of the people seemed concerned with what the study is saying - that American women are at an exceptionally high risk of death. Nobody said, 'Gee, this is terrible' or 'What should be done?'"

Hemenway said the e-mails would concern him more if they were from scientists or professionals offering legitimate criticisms. He did respond to two of the 24 e-mails because they raised what Hemenway considered thoughtful questions.

Most of the e-mails, Hemenway believes, were from people who didn't bother to actually read his study before writing. The writers, instead of citing his paper, generally referred to a column about the study that appeared on FOXNews.com.

Hemenway said he is not "anti-gun."

"I don't have a big interest in guns one way or the other," he said. "Nor do I believe that either banning guns or promoting increased gun ownership are good policies. I am interested in injury prevention, and as far as fatal and very serious injuries in this country are concerned, guns play an important role in the overall picture."

Hemenway began researching injury control in the 1970s, beginning with fire safety issues. He has investigated motor vehicle safety, falls and fractures, child abuse, and suicide. He is director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center (HICRC) and co-director of the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center.

Gun-related studies have interested him over the past few years because of a dearth of knowledge in the field.

"There hasn't been enough good research about guns because there is not enough funding or good data out there," said Hemenway.

Hemenway and his colleagues have strived to fill in the data gaps. Since 1998, they have worked on more than two dozen articles about gun-related issues, including papers about guns on college campuses and public opinion about firearms. Hemenway has finished a draft of a book tentatively titled "Private Guns, Public Health."

Hemenway finds gun-related research exciting because each finding can break new ground in an under-researched field. Even the controversies provide research material.

"The subject matter is so contentious, and you have people on both sides saying things with no evidence to support them," said Hemenway. "Listening to all the claims provides many research ideas."

And plenty of e-mails
Sounds to me like the guy might be pretty neutral and that the media took his story & ran. All it seems to be saying (I didn't dig enough to actual find the study & read it) is that US women are likely to be killed/injured from guns. Not from whose guns. I'd say it could just as easily be another point to be argued by either side:
Anti-gunners - "There are too many guns in the nation - make em all illegal & we will have less crime/injuries/death".

Pro-gunners - "If more women carried then they could better defend themselves & crime/injuries/death would go down."

SSDD.
:roll:
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,729 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Most of these studies are in journals that are subscription based, thus making them not very accessible, unless you are going to subscribe to every journal in which an article appears in which you are interested.

And I did not "run with it." I asked if he controlled for for race.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
Tinkerhell said:
First off, lets be careful about blaming the researcher, or

"Wow, did the liberal media come across something they could pervert into being anti-gun? Again."

Harvard Gazette:
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002 ... enway.html

Sounds to me like the guy might be pretty neutral and that the media took his story & ran. All it seems to be saying (I didn't dig enough to actual find the study & read it) is that US women are likely to be killed/injured from guns. Not from whose guns. I'd say it could just as easily be another point to be argued by either side:
Anti-gunners - "There are too many guns in the nation - make em all illegal & we will have less crime/injuries/death".

Pro-gunners - "If more women carried then they could better defend themselves & crime/injuries/death would go down."

SSDD.
:roll:
Nomally I would agree with you. However I have done a lot of research into these "studies" and who the funding grants come from. This is not the first anti-gun study done by him in the slightest.
http://www.secondamendmentcenter.org/ex ... .asp?id=28

If you have not seen much about the latest tactic by the anti-gunners, here is what happens. In the beginning Joyce funded the VPC to produce this garbage. When gun-rights people complained that an anti-gun group would/could only produce anti-gun studies, the Joyce foundation started funding schools that were so liberal and in need of grant money they would produce any anti-gun study you wanted and not under an anti-gun groups name but under a University. And in press releases they ALWAYS say that they are not bias one way or another... they are just surprised by the results. Those results were paid for by an anti-gun group that only funds people who somehow only find negative things about guns.

If you look up 90% of research into gun violence you will come up with only a few schools.
Boston University - Boston University runs Join Together Online. Join Together no longer has a gun violence section because they could no longer find grant money to fund it.

Firearm & Injury Center at Penn (FICAP) Ran by by University of Pennsylvania, received a $300,000 grant for 18 months from the Joyce Foundation.

Harvard School of Public Health Received a $700,000 grant for 2 years from the Joyce Foundation.

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health They run the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, which received $181,117 grant from the Joyce Foundation for 2 years of gun control research.

Second Amendment Research Center At the John Glenn Institute for Public Service and Public Policy at The Ohio State University. The only 2nd Amendment Research they are interested in is civic/collective rights. $125,000 over 2 years from the Joyce Foundation. Home of Saul Cornell.
Stanford Law and Policy Review Joyce Foundation Grant provided for anti-gun authors and an issue of the review for their "studies" to appear in.
The links for those are at the bottom left group on my anti-gun links page. http://www.georgiapacking.org/links_antigun.php
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,172 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
Good info GS!!

A question though. Were does NRA grant money go to? I'm new to the gun/anit-gun scene so I certainly don't know the players but I would have to think that both sides would use similar tactics.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
Tinkerhell said:
Good info GS!!

A question though. Were does NRA grant money go to? I'm new to the gun/anit-gun scene so I certainly don't know the players but I would have to think that both sides would use similar tactics.
There is a very small amount of grant money from the NRA out there, but typically go to NRA affiliated gun rights groups and not individuals or schools. The amount of funding is nothing close to Joyce.

As far as I am aware, most studies created that are pro-gun are either created by an independent (primary field is not gun related) author to refute an anti-gun study they see as incorrect or are people like John Lott and Gary Kleck who are pro-gun and their studies are about that.

Most pro-gun studies are funded by the researcher themselves, just like most pro-gun groups are funded by their own members (themselves). If you join the NRA, GOA, or SAF you are a member of the organization and protected by them.

Most anti-gun studies are funded by large grants by anti-gun organizations, just like most anti-gun groups are funded by the same anti-gun organizations and do not have actual members at all. Check out Brady, VPC, or AGS, you cannot become a member of any of them. The only anti-gun organization you can actually join is the AHSA and they are trying their best to look like a pro-gun organization.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
Malum Prohibitum said:
And they did not even study individual states. They divided them into four groups. :roll:

Now, I'm going to show you just how full of crap Hemenway, Miller, and Tim Lambert are.
:D http://www.alphecca.com/mt_alphecca_arc ... 02976.html
What this guy had to say was very informative.
The report says the study controlled for resource deprivation (poor?), urbanization (city), aggravated assault (attack with a weapon to cause great bodily injury), robbery (aggravated assault + theft), unemployment, and alcohol consumption.

I have found that the first thing to do when presented with controls is to check that the terms the study uses actually mean what the law says they do (example, the VPC included in its "Assault weapons" some guns specifically exmpted in Federal the law). Second is to make sure that all things that should be controlled for are. Last is that nothing is controlled for that should not be.

Since I can't see the full report I will skip the first part.

The second part, I understand why most of those were controlled for, what I do not understand is why things such as Gangs, Burglaries, Hate Crimes and Forcible Rapes were not controlled for as well. All four are reasons why people go out and purchase firearms. Have you heard of someone going out and purchaseing a gun because they fear gang initiations, home invasions, threats from groups like the KKK/Neo Nazis, or serial rapists? I have. Which makes me wonder why these were not included? I know some states have a much larger gang problem than others.

Third, What does alcohol consumption have to do with firearm homicides? Note that it is not a crime to consume alcohol. Did they go by gallons (amount of liquid) or proof (alcohol content) consumed? Since beer has less alcohol than wine or liquor, the quantity drank to acheive the same level of intoxication will be much higher for beer than wine or liquor, so a region that drinks beer over wine/liquor will drink more (have higher gallon consumption) but could still be equal in their actual level of intoxication. So if quantity drank is used with no regard to the proof of alcohol, regional differences between areas could skew the the results. Such as California being home to many wine vinyards with a large group of the population drinking small amounts of wine could consume less overall than a state with a large group of the population drinking beer. The quantity of liquid consumed would be more for the beer states, but the percentage of alcohol in that liquid could mean that the wine drinking areas are more intoxicated than the beer drinking ones.

Someone please explain why such a possible bias was included for firearm homicide rates because I can't think of one (other than skewing the results). I understand including crimes for public intoxication and DWI etc.. (crimes committed while intoxicated) but just not the consumption of alcohol.

Posted by: Gunstar1 at January 15, 2007 04:47 PM
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,729 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
What this guy (Kermit the Frog) has to say about it is even more informative:

why is it that these papers where one can put together the data in an afternoon get any serious attention
:D

Since Miller and Hemenway have refused in the past to let me look at their data, I didn't bother this time and simply put the data together myself.

The bottom line is that their results comes from two factors: the exclusion of DC and the use of other crime rates to explain the murder rate. Changing these two factors causes their result to go from positive and significant to negative and significant. I also decided to run these regressions on the robbery rate and doing so produced a statistically significant negative effect whether or not DC was excluded.
Well worth the time to click on the link and read it. :wink: Unfortunately, his tables are all jumbled up. Hopefully that will be corrected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Funny how people just flock to anything like numbers. It's almost like a religion really, "it its got numbers then then its objective therefore it must be true" is basically the same as "you cited the bible, god is omnipotent and omniscient, therefore it must be true"

Or more to the point it's a lot like I said at the presentation Wednesday. Its simply ridiculous in a nation with 300 million people and two wide open borders and a bevy of other social issues to control for everything else and reduce it down to guns X, crime Y.

But I'm not saying statistics are not powerless:

For example (and I'm not going to be precise, though I will be accurate as best I can remember, with my facts) but here we go:

Crime in 1990 was higher than it is today. For a substantial portion of the past 17 years we were under the AWB. Now some people say that the AWB was the reason that crime went down, but pre AWB numbers show that assault weapons were used in at most 2% of all crimes and BJS studies show that a strong majority of criminals perfer guns not covered by the AWB. Crime has fallen by more than 2% in the past 17 years. Further crime hasn't changed that much since the AWB sunsetted 2 years ago.

At the same time large numbers of states started changing their laws to "shall issue" states. I don't have the Lott studies in front of me but I do know from previous readings that those people given carry licesnes have a crime rate much lower than the average in their state and indeed near 0. Therefore, it seems that at least the issuance of carry permits did not cause crime to increase. Lott and others IIRC would argue that it has caused crime to go down, I personally think they are right but I'm not armed with even ballpark figures right now.

So what does all this mean. It means that the AWB, most likely, wasn't the cause of the reduction in crime since the reduction in crime was greater than the marginal effect one would have expected due to the limited scope of the AWB in comparison to how criminals usually arm themsleves. Furhter, the fact that older models and compliant models were available suggests that the expected reduction in crime due to the AWB should be much lower than the percentage of guns it banned, in fact since the AWB left room for compliance and did not ban preexisting guns the likely expected impact of the AWB should be roughly 0.

At the same time we experienced an explosion (marginally speaking) in the number of people liscensed to carry guns, yet crime still went down over the period of time. Further, if you control for the population who holds these permits you find that their crime rates are near 0.

Now maybe that's proof maybe it's not. I'm certainly no expert, but I do know how to craft logical arguments and a thing or two about guns and statistical analysis. So on the basis of my "study" one could conclude at the VERY LEAST that guns have 0 effect on the crime in the US and without even a substantial degree of reliance on my "study" one could reasonably conclude that guns have at least some reducing effect on the nations crime rate.

Hrm, I wonder if I can get funding for my study now, I could always use some extra cash :D
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,729 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Gunstar1 said:
The only anti-gun organization you can actually join is the AHSA and they are trying their best to look like a pro-gun organization.
From the Richmond Times-Dispatch: http://tinyurl.com/2shl3r

Letters To The Editor
Friday, Jun 01, 2007 - 12:09 AM

That Gun Group Is a Front

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

In the editorial, "The Gun Giveaway," you quote Bob Ricker, executive director of the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA), as implying that he and AHSA are "legitimate gun owners and shooters" and that somehow members of Virginia Citizens Defense League are not.

As a legitimate gun owner and shooter, I would like to clarify that neither Ricker nor AHSA speaks for me. Although Ricker formerly worked for the NRA :? , he is now a strong proponent of gun-control legislation.

Despite its misleading name, AHSA is dedicated to its own particular breed of gun control. Top donors to AHSA include such "legitimate gun owners and shooters" as Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, and Handgun Control, Inc. (now known as The Brady Campaign).

John Rosenthal, AHSA executive vice president and president of the AHSA Foundation, was at one time chairman of Stop Handgun Violence, a Massachusetts organization formed to promote gun control.

Implying that Ricker and the AHSA represent "legitimate" gun owners and shooters is akin to saying that Carrie Nation and the American Temperance Society represented "legitimate" barkeeps.

Bill Taggart. Richmond.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
Despite its misleading name, AHSA is dedicated to its own particular breed of gun control. Top donors to AHSA include such "legitimate gun owners and shooters" as Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, and Handgun Control, Inc. (now known as The Brady Campaign).
I was a bit surprised to see that Ted Kennedy is a “legitimate gun owner.†I did some research… low n behold he owns a Chappaquiddick 1911. The most threatening of water pistols.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,624 Posts
Malum Prohibitum said:
So says a Harvard School of Public Health study.

American states where more people own guns have higher murder rates, including murders of children, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health reported on Thursday.
Wonder if they controlled for race or any factors other than guns?
June issue of America's 1st freedom has an article about these three assclowns at Harvard.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
AV8R said:
Malum Prohibitum said:
So says a Harvard School of Public Health study.

American states where more people own guns have higher murder rates, including murders of children, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health reported on Thursday.
Wonder if they controlled for race or any factors other than guns?
June issue of America's 1st freedom has an article about these three assclowns at Harvard.
My own Anti-gun links page says this:
Harvard School of Public Health Received a $700,000 grant for 2 years from the Joyce Foundation.

In other words, the anti-gun research was bought and paid for by an anti-gun group that gives grants to promote gun control.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,729 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Wonder if they included DC as a state?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
I wonder if they bothered to figure out if the states "where more people own guns" owned them legally or not?

I have a feeling an illegally owned gun will be the kind most likely to be used illegally.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top