Biden's Gun Control Law Will Radically Change U.S. Gun Ownership

It's true that while homicide risk was doubled, it was still very small. But if the point of getting the gun was to "protect your family," this result suggests the opposite occurs on average (albeit not a huge risk). That said, this study doesn't account for other additional risks of having the gun around such as accidents or suicides, or what happens to the gun after this owner is no longer using it. So the PSA would be that it's not a good idea to get a gun to protect your family. Not "don't get a gun or your family will die." That wouldn't be honest.

 

Your false, misleading statements are "cheap shots"?
I laugh at you.
Run along.

 

Okay let me put it this way. We know, hopefully, that Fox News sometimes lies and they always have an agenda. Suppose Fox News funds a study with results they're interested in. Would that study automatically be invalid because Fox News funded it? No. Not even to me. Would I take a very close look at the methods if any political group like Fox News funded the study? Yes. Does the funding source actually conduct the study? No. So you're way off here. Completely illogical and wrong.

 

Carry on with your partisan trolling, lol. You almost got under my skin, if it makes you feel better.

 

Fair enough, although I'm not convinced that they couldn't have included earlier years.

I also found this:

"In adjusted analyses, cohabitants of handgun owners had virtually the same all-cause mortality rate as cohabitants of nonowners (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.99 to 1.03]) but more than double the homicide rate (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.33 [CI, 1.78 to 3.05]) (Figure 3). "

As I read this, living with a handgun owner increased the risk of homicide (barely over 50% in the home) but the overall mortality risk was virtually the same. The implication here is that even doubling the risk of homicide by living with a law abiding gun owner didn't significantly move the needle on total mortality risk.

 

Yes, I'm glad you're analyzing it. The reason is murder isn't a common way to die outside of particular high risk groups. I think the results are applicable to an average person, though, in terms of the decision to buy a gun (handgun) for home defense. It isn't something that's going to help them because having your life saved by having a handgun at home is just very unlikely. It's also very unlikely, but about twice as likely, that the handgun will instead be used to murder somebody in your house. So such people shouldn't buy a gun for that reason alone. If they like to hunt. If they like to go shooting. Fine. But probably still better to store it securely and unloaded.

There would be exceptions of course, as I said earlier, like if somebody has a good reason to think somebody is after them and trying to kill them, and may be willing to break into their home to do that. But that's not the situation for most people.

 

I analyze, or try to, every study to which I'm exposed.

I'm still trying to parse "In adjusted analyses, cohabitants of handgun owners had virtually the same all-cause mortality rate as cohabitants of nonowners" with "People who do not own handguns but live with others who do bear some of that risk, and the amount they bear appears to be substantial."

Edit: One issue is the way these studies calculate risk; 1495 handgun homicides over a twelve year period should be measured against 595,000 cohort members times 12 times 365, as every day where no one was murdered gives a more accurate picture.

 

The word substantial is subjective here. In relative terms, it is (double risk of the outcome of interest, homicide). In absolute terms, it isn't (no change in all-cause mortality). Homicide is so rare for average people, though, that even if it was a 20-fold difference, it might not have been seen in all-cause mortality. But would it then be substantial to you or me?

It's not the word I would have used, but it's not a major issue IMO. Subjective phrasing like that is a reason to pay close attention to the objective, statistical results of a study, given the context of the methods, and not just rely on how the authors think of it.

 

Always look for what they didn't say, or why they picked the timeliness they picked, etc.

 

When I was a high school teacher in Colorado I was also the coach of the rifle team. Imagine that. Not only is that high school gone but so is tolerance for high school shooting teams.