I will later read the full study in the embedded link. My overview comments, based on the article are fairly simple. The study is aimed at finding a correlation between gun injuries and gun conventions, and goes into some details about the rates; i.e. 1.5 per 100k PEOPLE on days other than the gun convention day(s), and 1.25 per 100k (PEOPLE) on gun convention days.
At first thought, this makes sense, as the risk is avoided … by convention attendees. But the rate is measured per “PEOPLE”, which I will research in the actual study (linked by IJ). So, I don’t know if the study authors are using the proper exposure base, or applying it consistently.
Two potential explanations for the 20% reduction (1.5/100k PEEPS to 1.25/100k PEEPS) are discussed; i.e. no use of guns by convention attendees and a positive effect of gun safety training. Because there is data of medical treatment injuries by day, I would like to see the actual raw data, day after day, to see the variance in the medically treated injuries, day by day. I wonder if some days other than convention days have drops or increases in the injuries that are treated rate, and how wide those changes in the medically treated injuries swing over 365 calendar days, and over the years of the study.
I believe the study authors may actually be looking to discredit the impact of safety training, which would have a lagged effect, long after the gun convention days. The article states there was no objective, such as to discredit the safety program impact, only to see what the results indicate. I doubt that is their intent. The article indicates the authors set the specific gun convention day(s) as a unique variable/subset of 365 calendar days. A more thorough and meaningful study would have used a subcategory of ‘gun convention attendees’ and measured the medical treatments of those people relative to those gun owners not attending gun conventions, both as a rate to 100k of such people.
I’ll return later, with comments after reading the underlying study (linked).
PS I expect a rapidly registered set of down votes by our usual cast of libitterals, with no replies, without having read my entire post. Note that my post above is apolitical, statistical in nature, and has no conservative stance points.
I will later read the full stupidity of your comment, but first i’d like to say blah blah blah, this article doesn’t fit in to what I believe, so I will make up some outrageous qualifiers, then demand random sources from those I will refute with the same formula shown above.
The author admits to potential conflicts of interest in the pdf linked to the article’s submission summary, supplementary materials 95KB pdf for disclosures. Read the list of 6 personal fee sources, mainly pharma and healthcare companies, and 1 grant from NIH. Read into it what you will.
The study ranges from -3 weeks to +3 weeks relative to the convention dates.
The range of the rates of injury, per their graph, ranges from 1.2 to 1.6. (per 100,000 ‘persons’).
The study shows P = .0004., and relative change of ~ 20%, from 1.49 to 1.19.
Using a relatively short 3 week periods BEFORE and AFTER the convention is insufficient to capture the long term effect of gun safety training. ALL gun owners do not immediately use their guns within 3 weeks of a convention. But the 3 individual week points show a very slight redux from the 1.5 per 100k persons average; i.e. to 1.4, 1.4, 1.55 which has an unweighted average of 1.45 (< 1.50 avg). But, I wouldn't claim that is a significant redux because it only uses 3 weekly points.
Finally, hundreds of millions of guns are registered in the US. This study followed 75M benefit period observations, split between 10M in the convention period day(s) and 64M in the 6 surrounding weeks. This uses 42 days and 75M counts of observations per ER visit counts, which would exclude minor injuries not treated by an ER. The hundreds of millions of legally owned guns cannot be directly compared to a number of ER visits weighted with 42 days. But a simple conversion shows 75M ER visits / 42 days = 1.75 M PEOPLE visiting an ER per day.
The RATES of gun-related ER visits PER 100,000 persons visiting an ER on the convention days was 1.19 (129 observed visits per 10M), and for the 40 surrounding dates it was 1.49 (963 per 64M). There is limited value in (these) stats comparing 1 or 2 days versus 40 surrounding dates. I again strongly suggest the 3 week period before and after is insufficiently small to capture the true, underlying rates and impact of safety training.
More could be said to discredit this biased study by a 'researcher' who has done similar studies of the effects of 'absences' of independent variable activities on some theorized dependent variable. I won't waste my time.
OK, liberal socialist gun control/ seizure advocates, review the underlying article and give everyone reading this page your summary of its value and key details. Ready, Steady, … GO!
Just so I understand. A few thousand people go to a NRA Convention. But gun accidents go down 20% for millions of gun owners around the country? I’m having a hard time seeing the correlation. Am I missing something?
IJ and Andrew Simpson are summarizing the report / study. The source article is biased, but the IJ staff are generally impartial.
Don’t leave; you’ll miss out on the silly replies and hyperbole by liberals upset with comments by conservatives, and, to a much lesser degree, the reverse.
Apparently tens of thousands of deaths each year = relative rarity.
Relative to what? The amount of people who stub their toes each day? The amount of people who get a paper cut?
This study shows us what we already knew: Take gun-loving people away from their ignorance, show them proper handling and storing of their weapons and accidents will drop. This study should be called, “The Case for Gun Control”
but by all means, let’s continue to let Joe Sixpack buy a semi-auto rifle in the parking lot of a Cracker Barrel.
Well, Tax Cuts, these ‘deaths’ occur when a bullet damages vital organs and/or causes sufficient blood loss.
You can be pro-gun and acknowledge the fact that guns are used in the killing of thousands and tens of thousands of Americans annually. Some by murder, others suicide, and still others by accident.
The Federal Government recently reported that 60,000. violent crimes per year are prevented by – wait for it – a private citizen with a gun.
Florida State research made the estimate at 1,000,000. violent crimes prevented each year by a private citizen with a gun.
So, let do simple math. Take the number of homicides with a gun per year (about 7,500. Other murders are done with knives, hands …). Now compare that to 60,000. violent crimes. Let’s see. . .
Gun Control: makes perfect sense until you actually think about it.
March 7, 2018 at 9:17 am
Cut the Bias says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Craig,
How many of those crimes were going to be committed using firearms? If we got the firearms away from the criminals, regular people (ie: those not trained, certified, or competent to handle a firearm, especially in a high-pressure situation) wouldn’t need to arm themselves.
Look at violent crime rates in countries with strict gun control or no guns at all.
Or don’t, because you have already made up your mind about this. To you, owning guns and maintaining the status quo is more important than almost anything out there.
March 1, 2018 at 2:08 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
5
3
If it were really the gun owners and the big bad NRA the findings would have been ” gun injuries and violence increase in the areas of the conventions, gun shows etc.” And trust me they did the research to try to say that.
Gotta go, my AR has been caught walking the dog again.
No one would disagree with you IF the correlation were stronger. I haven’t found the daily accident rate where the injured PEOPLE are medically treated. It may be that the safety training at gun conventions does have a lagged effect on injury rates. Or, the observed 20% drop in the medically treated injury rate on gun convention days, however it is defined, may be randomness in daily data. In other words, some days when there is no gun convention might have medically treated injury rates more than 20% lower than the average rate, and others might be 35% higher than the average rate.
Will libbies intent on gun control through incremental steps and propaganda directed at unsuspecting audiences soon call for a name change of the tv show with the 4 male geeks, two blondes and one brunette geek?
UW- tell that to the people shot and killed in their own home everyday by someone else with a gun. You could even mention that to the families of the 17 children killed while the officers with their guns sat outside the school in Florida. Let’s all sit and wait for the police to protect us. smh
I will later read the full study in the embedded link. My overview comments, based on the article are fairly simple. The study is aimed at finding a correlation between gun injuries and gun conventions, and goes into some details about the rates; i.e. 1.5 per 100k PEOPLE on days other than the gun convention day(s), and 1.25 per 100k (PEOPLE) on gun convention days.
At first thought, this makes sense, as the risk is avoided … by convention attendees. But the rate is measured per “PEOPLE”, which I will research in the actual study (linked by IJ). So, I don’t know if the study authors are using the proper exposure base, or applying it consistently.
Two potential explanations for the 20% reduction (1.5/100k PEEPS to 1.25/100k PEEPS) are discussed; i.e. no use of guns by convention attendees and a positive effect of gun safety training. Because there is data of medical treatment injuries by day, I would like to see the actual raw data, day after day, to see the variance in the medically treated injuries, day by day. I wonder if some days other than convention days have drops or increases in the injuries that are treated rate, and how wide those changes in the medically treated injuries swing over 365 calendar days, and over the years of the study.
I believe the study authors may actually be looking to discredit the impact of safety training, which would have a lagged effect, long after the gun convention days. The article states there was no objective, such as to discredit the safety program impact, only to see what the results indicate. I doubt that is their intent. The article indicates the authors set the specific gun convention day(s) as a unique variable/subset of 365 calendar days. A more thorough and meaningful study would have used a subcategory of ‘gun convention attendees’ and measured the medical treatments of those people relative to those gun owners not attending gun conventions, both as a rate to 100k of such people.
I’ll return later, with comments after reading the underlying study (linked).
PS I expect a rapidly registered set of down votes by our usual cast of libitterals, with no replies, without having read my entire post. Note that my post above is apolitical, statistical in nature, and has no conservative stance points.
TLDR (above):
“I’m going to refute every aspect of this statistically backed study because I disagree with it.”
– Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears
Too stewpid. DNR.
Quality comment there Tax Cuts 4 RolaRich Bears… I’ve returned to read your comments after reading the underlying study. Anything to report?
I will later read the full stupidity of your comment, but first i’d like to say blah blah blah, this article doesn’t fit in to what I believe, so I will make up some outrageous qualifiers, then demand random sources from those I will refute with the same formula shown above.
The author admits to potential conflicts of interest in the pdf linked to the article’s submission summary, supplementary materials 95KB pdf for disclosures. Read the list of 6 personal fee sources, mainly pharma and healthcare companies, and 1 grant from NIH. Read into it what you will.
The study ranges from -3 weeks to +3 weeks relative to the convention dates.
The range of the rates of injury, per their graph, ranges from 1.2 to 1.6. (per 100,000 ‘persons’).
The study shows P = .0004., and relative change of ~ 20%, from 1.49 to 1.19.
Using a relatively short 3 week periods BEFORE and AFTER the convention is insufficient to capture the long term effect of gun safety training. ALL gun owners do not immediately use their guns within 3 weeks of a convention. But the 3 individual week points show a very slight redux from the 1.5 per 100k persons average; i.e. to 1.4, 1.4, 1.55 which has an unweighted average of 1.45 (< 1.50 avg). But, I wouldn't claim that is a significant redux because it only uses 3 weekly points.
Finally, hundreds of millions of guns are registered in the US. This study followed 75M benefit period observations, split between 10M in the convention period day(s) and 64M in the 6 surrounding weeks. This uses 42 days and 75M counts of observations per ER visit counts, which would exclude minor injuries not treated by an ER. The hundreds of millions of legally owned guns cannot be directly compared to a number of ER visits weighted with 42 days. But a simple conversion shows 75M ER visits / 42 days = 1.75 M PEOPLE visiting an ER per day.
The RATES of gun-related ER visits PER 100,000 persons visiting an ER on the convention days was 1.19 (129 observed visits per 10M), and for the 40 surrounding dates it was 1.49 (963 per 64M). There is limited value in (these) stats comparing 1 or 2 days versus 40 surrounding dates. I again strongly suggest the 3 week period before and after is insufficiently small to capture the true, underlying rates and impact of safety training.
More could be said to discredit this biased study by a 'researcher' who has done similar studies of the effects of 'absences' of independent variable activities on some theorized dependent variable. I won't waste my time.
OK, liberal socialist gun control/ seizure advocates, review the underlying article and give everyone reading this page your summary of its value and key details. Ready, Steady, … GO!
So gun enthusiasts should have weekly open carry meetings in their community to help reduce negligent discharges?
Just so I understand. A few thousand people go to a NRA Convention. But gun accidents go down 20% for millions of gun owners around the country? I’m having a hard time seeing the correlation. Am I missing something?
HOW DO YOU UNSUSCRIBE TO THIS COMMUNIST RAG????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
just don’t type http://www.insurancejournal.com into your web browser
IJ and Andrew Simpson are summarizing the report / study. The source article is biased, but the IJ staff are generally impartial.
Don’t leave; you’ll miss out on the silly replies and hyperbole by liberals upset with comments by conservatives, and, to a much lesser degree, the reverse.
Aren’t the republicans the ones working with the communists?
Define ‘working with’. Ready, steady, … GO!
“Because of the relative rarity of gun-related homicides, suicides and fatal accidents…”
At least they admit it.
LOL, that bit of editorializing is comical.
Apparently tens of thousands of deaths each year = relative rarity.
Relative to what? The amount of people who stub their toes each day? The amount of people who get a paper cut?
This study shows us what we already knew: Take gun-loving people away from their ignorance, show them proper handling and storing of their weapons and accidents will drop. This study should be called, “The Case for Gun Control”
but by all means, let’s continue to let Joe Sixpack buy a semi-auto rifle in the parking lot of a Cracker Barrel.
Tens of thousands? How do those ‘deaths’ occur, SPECIFICALLY? Link?
Well, Tax Cuts, these ‘deaths’ occur when a bullet damages vital organs and/or causes sufficient blood loss.
You can be pro-gun and acknowledge the fact that guns are used in the killing of thousands and tens of thousands of Americans annually. Some by murder, others suicide, and still others by accident.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mass-shooting-gun-statistics-2018-2
The Federal Government recently reported that 60,000. violent crimes per year are prevented by – wait for it – a private citizen with a gun.
Florida State research made the estimate at 1,000,000. violent crimes prevented each year by a private citizen with a gun.
So, let do simple math. Take the number of homicides with a gun per year (about 7,500. Other murders are done with knives, hands …). Now compare that to 60,000. violent crimes. Let’s see. . .
Gun Control: makes perfect sense until you actually think about it.
Craig,
How many of those crimes were going to be committed using firearms? If we got the firearms away from the criminals, regular people (ie: those not trained, certified, or competent to handle a firearm, especially in a high-pressure situation) wouldn’t need to arm themselves.
Look at violent crime rates in countries with strict gun control or no guns at all.
Or don’t, because you have already made up your mind about this. To you, owning guns and maintaining the status quo is more important than almost anything out there.
If it were really the gun owners and the big bad NRA the findings would have been ” gun injuries and violence increase in the areas of the conventions, gun shows etc.” And trust me they did the research to try to say that.
Gotta go, my AR has been caught walking the dog again.
For public safety’s sake, they should have more conventions.
No one would disagree with you IF the correlation were stronger. I haven’t found the daily accident rate where the injured PEOPLE are medically treated. It may be that the safety training at gun conventions does have a lagged effect on injury rates. Or, the observed 20% drop in the medically treated injury rate on gun convention days, however it is defined, may be randomness in daily data. In other words, some days when there is no gun convention might have medically treated injury rates more than 20% lower than the average rate, and others might be 35% higher than the average rate.
You mean like the strong correlation between the links of cell phone and marijuana use towards pedestrian deaths that you love to talk about?
That’s actually Agent that likes to do that. Tax Cuts 4 Polar blah blah blah just takes whatever stand Fox News takes.
You wouldn’t believe it now, but if you can imagine, he was actually against deficits and Russia at one point. :P
Now he’s pro red dawn
Will libbies intent on gun control through incremental steps and propaganda directed at unsuspecting audiences soon call for a name change of the tv show with the 4 male geeks, two blondes and one brunette geek?
Because they have to leave their guns at home and only a few people own most guns,which makes households with them more dangerous.
UW- tell that to the people shot and killed in their own home everyday by someone else with a gun. You could even mention that to the families of the 17 children killed while the officers with their guns sat outside the school in Florida. Let’s all sit and wait for the police to protect us. smh
Ok, but then you tell the people killed in their home by their own guns, which is a higher number, genius.