Skip to main content

More guns = less crime? Not so fast says a new study

I've never been one to believe that more guns results in less gun-related crime. It's just never made any logical sense to me. Is there a link between an increase in fast-food consumption and a decrease in obesity? An increase in unprotected sex and a decrease in sexually-transmitted diseases? It's about cause and effect. What are guns designed to do? Shoot. What are the possible effects of shooting a firearm? Injuring and/or killing an animal or person. The more guns that are purchased and shot, the greater the gun-related crime will likely be. The greater the fast-food consumption, the greater the obesity rate will likely be. The greater the frequency of unprotected sex, the greater the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases will likely be. That's what logic, consistency, and common sense have told me through the years. However, many on the right-side of the political spectrum have been attempting to persuade people that the direct opposite is true - with an increase in gun ownership, there's a decrease in gun-related crime. Unfortunately, studies of gun violence have been more scarce than MySpace in recent years, which has led to a great deal of debate without much scientific merit.

Fortunately, studies revolving around gun violence will become more commonplace in the next four years following President Obama's executive order on the matter. Yesterday, such a study was published in the medical journal JAMA Internal Medicine. The results were based on gun-related deaths (homicides and suicides) between 2007 and 2010 reported by the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

What was discovered? States with the most gun-control laws have the fewest gun-related deaths - a 42% lower gun-death rate than states with the least number of such laws.

Your move, NRA...

http://news.yahoo.com/more-gun-laws-fewer-deaths-134804944.html

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...
2 comments
Read more

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...
2 comments
Read more