Quote of the day—Journal of Surgical Research

Nationally, all crime rates except the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–designated firearm homicides decreased as firearm sales increased over the study period. Using a naive national model, increases in firearm sales were associated with significant decreases in multiple crime categories. However, a more robust analysis using generalized estimating equation estimates on state-level data demonstrated increases in firearms sales were not associated with changes in any crime variables examined.

Journal of Surgical Research
Mark E.Hamill MD
Matthew C.Hernandez MD
Kent R.Bailey PhD
Caleb L.Cutherell MD
Martin D.Zielinski MD
Donald H.Jenkins MD
Douglas F.Naylor MD
Miguel A.Matos DO
Bryan R.Collier DO
Henry J.Schiller MD
Legal Firearm Sales at State Level and Rates of Violent Crime, Property Crime, and Homicides
Journal of Surgical Research
Volume 281, January 2023, Pages 143-154
[This may be useful for exposing the lies of the anti-gun people who claim more guns cause more crime. It may also demonstrate benefits in reducing stress in the general population caused by the courts declaring existing gun laws unconstitutional.—Joe]


14 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Journal of Surgical Research

  1. So they discovered John Lott knew what he was doing. Fancy that.

    The summary reads to me “we found that more guns means less crime, so we kept massaging the statistics until it stopped saying that”.

    • Pretty much. But the best they could come up with was that gun sales don’t have any effect on crime rates.

      • Given that they seem to be people intent on pushing a political position with the pretense of being “experts” when in fact they have no expertise whatsoever that is in any way relevant, I would dismiss those “statistics” out of hand.
        Never forget the original “nonsense ratio” (Dr. Gary Kleck’s term), the claim by some quacks in Cleveland who used data from just one county to conclude that guns are bad for self defense because more people are killed by gun crime than are killed in self defense. Kleck tags that “nonsense” because “what is so deceptive about the ratio is the hint that killing burglars or intruders is somehow a “benefit” to the householder. This is both morally offensive and factually inaccurate.”
        So with that history, and plenty of others like it including a notorious CDC effort, I tend to view all papers by supposed medical types about guns to be guilty until proven innocent.

  2. In this study does “firearm homicides” include suicides?

    If so then what would the stats be if they were excluded?

    • I don’t think so, “A total of 12 datapoints encompassing the rates for UCR Total Violent Crime, UCR Murder, UCR Robbery, UCR Rape, UCR Aggravated Assault, UCR Total Property Crime, UCR Burglary, UCR Larceny, UCR Vehicle Theft, CDC Homicide, CDC Firearm Homicide, and NICS Checks.”

  3. I think the real problem is bias. If one takes the number of firearms purchased using the NICS system in Chicago. And compares it to homicides with guns in Chicago? (Where the real problem is.)
    At the same time. If you took the same amount of population over a rural area of Illinios? (Not so much.)
    So, looking at statewide data is just an attempt to not have to look at the real problem. In the place that actually has the problem. And all of it is blame shifting to an inanimate object, rather than the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.
    That being it’s a human behavioral problem. And mostly a black person behavioral problem.
    And then The UCR reporting. Is everyone actually doing it? Properly? The answer is no, their not. Garbage in, garbage out.
    How does one account for stolen firearms and cars in California? Possession of either is a misdemeanor. Catch and release. Plead down, and passed over?
    How could the FBI/UCR end up with proper stats for the bases of study?
    This is a communist putsch were in. No one is going to get straight numbers to work with.
    And the fact that you have the surgical staff doing the study on guns, speaks volumes about how far down that rabbit hole we are. And the desperation to control the narrative.
    Why aren’t this group of nimrods writing tomes against trying to “transition” children into a medical impossibility? That seems a lot more in line with their field of expertise?
    The problem is bias.

    • I caught that, too. “generalized estimating equation estimates on state-level data” meant they put their thumbs on the scale to “adjust” (i.e. Manipulate) the data for cities that have been run by Democrats and those run by Republicans, and as you say, blended Democrat-run city data with an overall Republican-run state.

  4. “generalized estimating equation estimates:” : Translation: I don’t like what I found so I’ll guess it into what I want.
    The level of BS exceeds all ‘estimates’ of probability.
    As a triple Boarded still practicing Emergency Physician with 53 years of experience and training; a Combat veteran; and a retired commissioned and sworn Peace Officer’ CJTC Firearms Instructor :
    My opinion is that the Organized Medicine Specialities have the Constitutional knowledge of a dead chicken.

  5. You cant reason with Psychotics.
    Facts and Truth are Irrelevant.

    I give you Transgender and Non-Binary as Perfect Examples.
    Both MADE UP Words and “Fact” according to these crazies

    • “Assault weapons” is also a made-up term. But since made up terms and “transitioning” are both reality now, perhaps my braced .300 assault pistol can be left alone, if it and I think it’s really a lever action Marlin?

  6. My brother is a ER doctor and the director of a level 2 emergency room in east Tennessee. he ALWAYS carries a firearm.

  7. Don’t make the mistake of trying to win the ‘gun control battle’ by bandying about numbers and statistics. They are irrelevant. The Second Amendment protects a RIGHT. You don’t need to prove anything to exercise that Right. Trying to justify your exercise of said Right falls into the lefts trap. Once you accept their argument that you must justify gun ownership they WILL find a way to “prove” you don’t need to own a gun.

Comments are closed.