Gun Owners and drinking "through the eyes of UC Davis"

I wont even start my rant, but what a complete piece of trash article and poll to come out of the Peoples Republic of California.
:cuss::banghead::cuss:

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/06/15/uc-davis-study-gun-ownership-linked-to-heavy-drinking/

Forget the article, forget the study itself, and forget the comments as good as they were for the most part.

Where did whoever painted/created that picture come up with their conception of what a revolver and cartridges looked like? Salvadore Dali could do a more realistic representation.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Forget the article, forget the study itself, and forget the comments as good as they were for the most part.

Where did whoever painted/created that picture come up with their conception of what a revolver and cartridges looked like? Salvadore Dali could do a more realistic representation.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Some 12 year old that knows photo shop or some other make it up as you go along type program...

Let's see, we have "beer" cans, we have projectiles as long as casings and we have a grossly out of proportion revolver with no trigger, check the shadow, no trigger!!!

From the article:

The article does not say owning guns is the reason for the drinking or vice-versa. However it suggests that drinking can impair judgment and lead people to use guns in dangerous ways. It also suggests that personality traits, such as impulsiveness or risk-taking, could lead to an increase in dangerous behavior involving alcohol and guns.

So you, the universal you, would rather be armed or unarmed when the drunk fool unholsters his weapon and starts waving it around... *rhetorical*


I am glad I live on the right coast!!!

Stay Safe,

asg

skidmark said:

Forget the article, forget the study itself, and forget the comments as good as they were for the most part.

Where did whoever painted/created that picture come up with their conception of what a revolver and cartridges looked like? Salvadore Dali could do a more realistic representation.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Why should we "forget the study," SM?

Surely not because of a graphic from a news source that is separate from the scientific journal. That doesn't make any sense. That would just be a reactionary (and very weak) argument.

What is your criticism of the research findings?

tim12232 said:

I wont even start my rant, but what a complete piece of trash article and poll to come out of the Peoples Republic of California.
:cuss::banghead::cuss:

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/06/15/uc-davis-study-gun-ownership-linked-to-heavy-drinking/

Click to expand...

What's wrong with the article, T12232 What makes it "trash," do you think?


Here's the article abstract from the Injury Prevention journal's site:

Association between firearm ownership, firearm-related risk and risk reduction behaviours and alcohol-related risk behaviours
Garen J Wintemute
Correspondence to
Dr Garen J Wintemute, Violence Prevention Research Program, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, 2315 Stockton Blvd, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA; gjwintemute@ucdavis.edu
Accepted 13 April 2011
Published Online First 13 June 2011


Abstract
Alcohol use and firearm ownership are risk factors for violent injury and death. To determine whether firearm ownership and specific firearm-related behaviours are associated with alcohol-related risk behaviours, the author conducted a cross-sectional study using Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data for eight states in the USA from 1996 to 1997 (the most recent data available). Altogether, 15 474 respondents provided information on firearm exposure. After adjustment for demographics and state of residence, firearm owners were more likely than those with no firearms at home to have ≥5 drinks on one occasion (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.50), to drink and drive (OR 1.79; 95% CI 1.34 to 2.39) and to have ≥60 drinks per month (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.83). Heavy alcohol use was most common among firearm owners who also engaged in behaviours such as carrying a firearm for protection against other people and keeping a firearm at home that was both loaded and not locked away. The author concludes that firearm ownership and specific firearm-related behaviours are associated with alcohol-related risk behaviours.

it upsets me, based on the way it is shown and written in the article, it's "perception".

Let's break it down shall we?! The title says "Gun Ownership Linked to Heavy Drinking"
ones first thought when reading that is, Gun owners are drunks.

It then goes on in the article and I quote "Perhaps more disturbing, the study found alcohol abuse was most common among gun-owners who engage in risky behavior like having a loaded, unlocked gun in the home and driving or riding in a vehicle with a loaded gun."
I do keep my gun loaded and unlocked in the house, why? Self Defense, what good is a gun when its locked up? and I'm fumbling with the combination or finding keys as the baddy is trying to kick in my door? I also keep my gun loaded in my car, and after reading the thread today about "would you shoot a minor" where 3 teens try to rob a couple in there car with a shotgun, Yah I want my gun with me and loaded.

I have a lot of gun friends and non gun friends, from Minnesota and North Dakota to Colorado, California, Montana and out here in NC and even PA. More of my non gun friends drink "regularly once a week or more" than my gun friends. Do we all drink at times? Sure we do, but we dont as much as touch our guns when we drink, and as I have told many people I can count the number of drinks I have per year on both hands. Nothing against drinking, but just seems the article is biased.

I guess I should go post an article about College and binge drinking, does it exist? yup, is it the norm? probably more than a bunch of drunk gun toting Americans!

Tim

Meaningless. Finding a correlation merely means that the work has just begun, work that is rarely continued. But then, we must ask ourselves about the motivation of those conducting the "study" and those pushing the correlations that are found. Do they pursue the truth? Or do they just want to create an impression, a false one?

Correlation does not mean causation. There are four possible reasons for a correlation between the values of two variables, A and B:

1. A causes B.
2. B causes A.
3. C causes both A and B.
4. Coincidence (which literally means two things happening at the same time).

Examples:

1. Carry causes binge drinking (ludicrous).
2. Binge drinking causes carry (even more ludicrous).
3. Some other attribute(s) increase(s) the probability that one will both carry and binge drink (most likely).
4. The sample was so small that it does not accurately represent the population (not likely, judging from the CI).

Without knowing which of the above is at play (and , in the third case, what C is), the study is meaningless.

Oh, and chronic drunks are, by definition, not binge drinkers. Do alcoholics have an increased or decreased propensity to carry? I suspect decreased as it would be too much of a bother to carry.

Binge drinking (from time to time having 5 or more drinks) and carry are both behaviors of people who believe that they are ultimately in charge of regulating their own actions (as are many behaviors that these "researchers" would consider "risky"*). I believe that the correlation is due to this link (making the correlation a result of effect #3 above, C being the belief in individual responsibility for one's actions). As long as folks don't binge drink and carry at the same time, I couldn't care less about, and am unsurprised by, the correlation.
_________________________________

*This, of course, raises the question, "What is the typical correlation between any two 'risky' behaviors?" I suspect that number is close to the numbers they found in the study--depriving the correlation found in the study of even more of its meaning.

Garen Wintemute isn't a scientist, he's an anti-rights activist:

http://www.nssfblog.com/retailers-heeding-industry’s-caution-of-anti-gun-survey/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/interviews/wintemute.html

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/wintemut.html

Yard Sale said:

Garen Wintemute isn't a scientist, he's an anti-rights activist:

http://www.nssfblog.com/retailers-heeding-industry’s-caution-of-anti-gun-survey/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/interviews/wintemute.html

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/wintemut.html

Click to expand...

Glad I wasn't the only one to immediately recognize the name. This guy's "research" is laughable. Just take a look at his papers, and determine what axe he has to grind: http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/publications/

It's always telling when some group calls themselves "violence provention" yet focus entirely on firearms.

well maybe if all the people in their study were not violent convicted gang members standing on their porches with "40's" in a bag and a "9" in their shorts, they wouldnt think were all DRUNKS :-D


BTW UC DAVIS............just cause g-slice stole a glock, doesnt mean hes a "gun owner".

Somehow I wasn't included in the survey/study. I don't drink alcohol at all. I carry a gun daily but don't engage in what could be called risky behaviours. I guess I wasn't part of the demographics he was looking for.