Are adolescents who drink and carry guns more likely to get shot?

[TPaine7]

I would think the answer to that would be yes, since teens who routinely carry guns and drink are probably gangbangers and even if they aren't are criminals by definition.

A marginally less obvious question is, "are the CDC and the NIH starting up the old propaganda production business?"

More than a decade after Congress cut funding for firearms research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), another federal health agency has been spending millions of dollars to study such topics as whether teenagers who carry firearms run a different risk of getting shot compared with suffering other sorts of injuries.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) also has been financing research to investigate whether having many liquor stores in a neighborhood puts people at greater risk of getting shot.

...

NIH records show that one study being questioned by lawmakers aimed to "investigate whether adolescents who consume alcohol and/or carry firearms, and/or whose daily activities occur in surroundings rich in alcohol and/or firearms, face a differential risk of being shot with a firearm or injured in a non-gun assault."


Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/19/nih-funds-study-of-teen-firearms/?feat=article_top10_read&

As I've explained before, the CDC is an organization that has stepped outside of its sphere--controlling disease--and become an anti-gun propaganda mill:

Two high CDC officials are quoted, one by the Journal of the American Medical Association the other by the Washington Post, saying that their goal was to build a case against firearms (one specified handguns).

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x168492#169193

I really hope this administration isn't setting the propaganda groundwork to justify something stupid and politically suicidal.

[TheWraith]

1. I wouldn't read too much into the CDC report just yet.

As we know, they've been into bad gun science for a long time.

[Sinti]

2. Why don't they just make a bonfire with the money for these studies?

At least then it might serve some purpose by keeping somebody warm. I do believe that anybody drinking alcohol and carrying guns is much more likely to get shot than someone not drinking. "A" beer may not make it more dangerous, but teens don't drink "a" beer. Guns are the last thing we need to worry about right now.

Edited for typo

[Katya Mullethov]

9. They do already

They use the heat generated by the cash to boil the mash and make ethanol , thus replacing heat lost through inefficiences making it an economically viably , shitty fuel choice .

[depakid]

3. Crikey- more dumb ass rationalization for obsession

Get a clue.

In terms of both relative and attributable risks- those who have firearms around- whether they carry them around or keep them in their house are more likely (and members of their households are more likely) to be involved in a violent crime- a gun related accident- a domestic or other argument ending with someone shot- a family shooting- a kid shooting- or some such tragedy than they ever are to confront their fantasy of killing some "bad guy."

For most folks, keeping guns around "for protection" is simply a bad idea- a product of irrational fear.

[armueller2001]

5. Sorry sir but that evidence has been refuted multiple times.

The Kellerman study you're referring to has been debunked time and time again.

[depakid]

17. I'm referring to multiple studies that make up a body of epidemiological literature

Not that facts and honest peer reviewed analysis will be accepted by obsessives... any more than you accept the deadly consequences of the policies that you promote.

Meanwhile:

Lifelong MH resident dies after gun accident
Oct 20, 2009

Lifelong Morgan Hill resident Tony Librers, 31, died after accidentally shooting himself with a handgun during a camping trip this weekend.

http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/260240-lifelong-mh-resident-dies-after-gun-accident

[armueller2001]

26. So you think that

studies which include cases of intruders bringing guns into a home, misrepresented as guns which were in the home previously, are entirely factual and not misleading? With only a sample size of less than 400 cases? And cases in which over 70% of the victims had high rates of criminal activity?

Doesn't sound too convincing to me. Let's not forget that one doesn't need to KILL an intruder for a firearm to be effective defense. Pointing a gun at an intruder is enough to stop an attack a great majority of the time, and shooting at the intruder or shooting the intruder and injuring are also possibilities. None of these situations are accounted for in Kellerman's study.

[Euromutt]

31. The epidemiological approach to firearms is based on a flawed premise to begin with

The problem with treating firearms as if they were a pathogen is that it assumes that everybody is more or less equally at risk once they're exposed. It doesn't make any difference to a virus or a cancer whether you have a criminal record, are a member of a criminal organization (like a drug gang) or have a tendency toward violence coupled with poor impulse control. It most assuredly does affect the likelihood that you will handle a firearm irresponsibly, or become the target of an assault with a firearm (unlawful or otherwise). In fact, the epidemiological research data bears this out, but the researchers consistently try to sweep it under the rug with the unconvincing claim that they "controlled for other variables," and avoid mentioning it in their conclusions, abstracts and press releases.

As for the peer review system, while it's undoubtedly the best available system of deciding what research should be funded and published, it is by no means flawless. Problems really arise when researchers stray outside their own field of expertise (in this case, medical/public health researchers performing what is really social science), but have their work reviewed by peers from their own field. With the likes of Kellermann, Miller, Hemenway, Azrael and Wintemute, we have medical researchers delving into issues of social science, but rather than have their work reviewed by social scientists, it is submitted to other medical/public health researchers. This problem is compounded in this particular instance by the fact that many medical/public health researchers are MDs, not Ph.Ds; their education and training has not focused on grounding them in the scientific method, but rather in how to apply science to patients. That's not an insurmountable problem when they restrict themselves to medical research, but it doesn't qualify them to accurately judge research on non-medical subjects.

And when what seems like an entire profession seems to suffer from groupthink on a particular issue, you get more egregious examples of peer review going wrong. The prime examples I can think of are Kellermann's 1993 study, "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home" and John Sloan's 1990 study "Firearm Regulation and Rates of Suicide," both published in the NEJM. Curiously, the raw research data of neither study was deposited with the NEJM, nor made available to independent researchers. Why did any of the peers who reviewed that study, let alone the majority, give the nod to studies of which they could not establish whether the findings were supported by the data? Is that your idea of "honest peer reviewed analysis"?

[Euromutt]

6. Is that really the best you can do? Really?

Trotting out some rephrasing of the conclusions of Kellermann's "studies," which have been dissected and found wanting so many times it's not even funny any more, garnished with some unsupported assertions about what you imagine the thought processes of gun owners to be, is really the best you can do? I can't think of a public health study that has concluded that having a firearm puts you at higher risk that didn't turn to not have taken into account in its conclusions (even though the data was there) that the overriding factor is that engaging in "high-risk behavior" is what puts people at higher risk of being involved in a violent outcome, and such people frequently arm themselves precisely because they judge themselves to be at higher risk of somebody trying to kill them.

Seriously, where the fuck do you get off asserting that gun owners harbor a "fantasy of killing" anyone? Bravado behind internet anonymity aside, I don't know of a single gun owner who doesn't take a position along the lines of "given the choice, I'd prefer never to have to fire a gun in anger, but when it comes to protecting the life and limb of my loved ones or myself, I will do whatever needs to be done."

I do notice that you seem incapable of using the word "fear" without prefixing it with "irrational." I suggest you read The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker when you get a chance. Fear may be irrational, but that doesn't mean it can't be right. And by the same token, is someone who installs smoke alarms and buys fire extinguishers acting merely on "irrational fear"? In 2006, there were only 2,704 deaths in the U.S. due to residential fires, compared to 1.2 million "serious violent crimes" recorded by law enforcement agencies.

As for domestic "arguments" resulting in one member of the household shooting another, these are almost always cases in which a pre-existing pattern of violence escalated to homicide. In small to medium-sized towns, the cops all too often are all too familiar with which addresses have recurring "domestic disturbance" calls, and it is at that kind of address that domestic homicides tend to occur. I've lost count of the number of times antis have posited a scenario of "but what if you snap during a verbal altercation with your wife, get a gun, and shoot her?" My standard response is that I've never so much as raised a hand to my wife, let alone been inclined to assault her with any of the various improvised weapons we have lying around the house (8" chef's knives, 3 D-cell MagLites, etc.), so why is it even remotely plausible that the presence of a firearm in the house would make a difference to the way I react? Conversely, if you're the kind of person who would get homicidally violent with a loved one, why would the absence of a firearm stop you?

[armueller2001]

7. By grabber "logic"

Everyone who has a smoke detector in their home is just trembling in fear of a fire... or if you wear your seat belt while driving, you must be a paranoid person who is scared to death of accidents.

Don't forget people, preparation is not the same as paranoia. Sticking your head in the sand and denying that violent crime exists is not morally superior to being prepared to defend yourself and your family's lives. It might make you FEEL better, but those feelings don't really count for a whole lot if the time comes when you wish you had a means of protection.

[GreenStormCloud]

11. Fantasy of killing a bad guy?

I'll pass on that fantasy, thank you very much. Although I do have and carry guns.

I will also pass on the fantasy of my house catching fire. Although I do have fire extinguishers and fire insurance.

People don't suddenly turn violent. People are extremely predictable. Gavin de Becker in The Gift of Fear shows that violent behavior can be accurately predicted. In every case of a domestic murder, there was a previous pattern of ever increasing violence. And the killer almost always already has a police record. In fact, current gun laws already forbid such a person from having a gun. The gun they do have is illegal for them.

Happily married couples don't suddenly turn homicidal because there is a gun in the house. Gun-grabbers who believe that are using magical thinking.

[depakid]

18. " Happily married couples don't suddenly turn homicidal because there is a gun in the house."

Oh, but they do- and we see these cases repeatedly.

The guy or woman who brings guns into their homes doesn't do so with the intent of killing one another or their families.

Your trouble is that you have no sense of rational risk assessment... which is what the studies are all about.

[Euromutt]

32. Got any evidence to support that assertion?

"Is too" isn't a particularly persuasive argument.

[TPaine7]

12. I understand that you are obsessed with suppressing the rights of people in the United States.

If my OPs and posts trigger a "dumb ass" rationalization for you to indulge your obsession--if they tempt you to repeatedly cite debunked pseudoscience and spout half-baked drivel--please be aware that you need not click on my OPs or read my posts.

You are free not to read what I write; my freedom of speech does not compel you to listen.

Ignore what I write; I won't be offended. I'll be happy for you if it helps with your problem.

[depakid]

19. I just think that you're rationalizing an obsession- rather than accepting what the evidence says

and looking foolish doing so.

Rather like a global warming denialist- with which such rationalizations (or "LOL debunking") have much in common with.

[GreenStormCloud]

25. You never specifically address rebuttals to your arguments.

All you ever do is repeat yourself, slightly varied.

How about addressing some of the rebuttals.

You can start with our rebuttal of your claim that those of us who are LEGAL gun-owners will suddenly get mad and kill our spouses. What ILLEGAL gun owners do doesn't count because they are already breaking the law and can be arrested, tried, and convicted, under current law.

[depakid]

30. Largely because they're bogus

Why rebut non-sense?

It's gets to be a never ending process and legitimizes positions with no merit- that have been discussed, dissected and rejected by actual science countless times before.

Hence the analogy to global warming denialists.

[Euromutt]

33. I'm starting to feel that way about you

The stuff Kellermann, Hemenway, Miller, Azreal, Wintemute etc. crank out is pseudoscience, agenda-driven research intended to support a predetermined conclusion (to wit, Guns Are Bad). Conclusions, abstracts and press releases make assertions that are not supported by the actual research. Studies with holes a high school freshman could point out are given the nod by peer reviewers instead of being consigned to the cylindrical archive where they belong. The whole process is disgustingly incestuous, with public health researchers almost never citing criminological research but only each other, which is hardly surprising, because the bulk of criminological research does not support (and often contradicts outright) the public health researchers' conclusions.

You can persist in insisting that the public health research is the only "actual science," but given the efforts many of us on this board have gone to to document the flaws in the various studies to which you allude, I think we're more than entitled to dismiss you as a crank if you do.

[TPaine7]

34. I second that

He's finally made a point worthy of respect: "why rebut nonsense?" Why indeed?

Unfortunately, it would have been unseemly for me to respond directly--I would, no doubt, have felt compelled to address some of the excrement that accompanied his solitary valid point. Which would have made my post self refuting. I try to leave the self-refuting to those who oppose rights.

Your post gave me an opportunity to agree with your conclusion: he's not worthy of serious notice unless he stubles into or repeats a sophistry likely to deceive honest fence-sitters.

Why rebut nonsense--at least the transparent variety?

[slackmaster]

28. WADR depakid, I think you are obsessing about a rationalization

One that if it does indeed exist, does you no harm.

[depakid]

29. It's simply a public health issue to me

Not dissimilar to vaccination or the ridiculous circumcision threads that crop up.

You are correct though- in about a month, firearms proliferation won't personally have much impact- though that doesn't mean I won't care. Others I care about in the states will still potentially be at risk- or make poor decisions based on fear.

[westerm]

4. are criminals more likely to be shot?

preliminary research suggests that yes, people who routinely break the law are indeed more likely to be shot. How is this news?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. I really hope there's more to the study than adolescents, guns, and alcohol.

Adolescents cant legally drink alcohol nor can they purchase guns... much less carry them legally.
Why the hell would a kid, drunk or otherwise, be carrying around a gun blatantly violating several laws?

They should really title the study, "Teenage Gangbusters and the Risk of Being Shot." I am honestly irate that taxpayer money supports a worthless shit like this. Someone should contact the people conducting the the study and ask them, "What's the end goal of your effort? Are you gathering evidence because you think we should enact more laws against adolescents carrying guns as well as adolescents buying/drinking alcohol? Are you trying to 'raise awareness'? Do you still beat your dog? ..."

[slackmaster]

10. The study should have accounted for other factors, like hookers and blow

:eyes:

[divideandconquer]

13. What's "blow"?

[armueller2001]

14. The word "blow" is slang for benzoylmethylecgonine, commonly called cocaine

[slackmaster]

15. Bernice, you know, yayo. Rich man's Dristan.

:nuke:

[gorfle]

16. Question: are gangbanging youths more likely to get shot?

Shit I could answer that one for free. Duh.

[slackmaster]

21. You're just ASSUMING that they're gangbangers because they're black

:sarcasm:

[JonQ]

22. Does living in a high crime area increase your chances of being the victim of crime?

The answer may shock you, more on this at 11.

[armueller2001]

23. News flash -

Homes with insulin are 3,000x more likely to have diabetics!

[JonQ]

24. My GOD!

Does the president know? We need to ban that stuff immediately, diabetes is a terrible disease.

[slackmaster]

27. So insulin causes diabetes

[JonQ]

20. I'm guessing more liquor stores

in an area generally means it's lower income, which would imply more crime.

I'm sure you could find similiar correlations looking at those areas with the highest rates of welfare recipients also have higher rates of violent crime (including guns).

Clearly welfare then would be the cause of violence, and not a symptom of a greater problem that contributes to both.