doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Research Tries to Claim Deer Hunting Causes Crime

https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton...er-hunting-causes-violent-crime-n1225950

In what may be the most poorly conceived and horribly researched study ever published by The Journal of the American Medical Association during its entire 141-year history, a trio of anti-gun researchers now claims deer hunting is associated with a substantial increase in firearm violence.

I fear it's only the beginning

The take away may be stay out of the woods on opening weekend, and I avoided opening day of bird season also even with access to private land.
Had a buddy doing a fellowship at Mass. General (Harvard) who went out opening day of deer season on public land. He had scouted and found what looked like an old tree stand. He was sitting in the stand and heard a gunshot, coming toward him, and thought that was odd. Then he heard another that hit the tree above his head. He decided to abandon the tree stand.
Was bird hunting on the property of a patient in NW Mo., with his son-in-law and a couple of med students. Some guys were chasing coyotes, driving pickups on his land, and we had several rounds of .223 incoming. Interesting and unsettling sound.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/article-abstract/2822218

"A third plausible interpretation is that the findings are associated with the start of deer hunting season but due to behavioral shifts unrelated to firearms, such as people being out in public more often, sleeping less, taking time off from work to hunt, or consuming more alcohol. These behavioral changes might increase opportunities for shootings to take place and create conditions for interpersonal conflicts to turn violent. We are not able to fully rule out these mechanisms with our data; however, 1 prior study showed that the start of deer hunting season was associated with null effects on overall crime, as measured with data reported by police departments, as well as a reduction in alcohol-related arrests, suggesting that the start of deer hunting season is not causally related to broader patterns of alcohol-related behavior or more generalized criminal activity. At the same time, the same study found that the number of male arrestees armed with a long gun in rural jurisdictions increased 300% with the opening of deer hunting season, suggesting that the prevalence of firearms around hunting season increases dramatically."

The articles in JAMA usually document how/who financed the study. This did not, but the agenda driving the "conclusions" is obvious.

There is nothing inconsistent with a medical publication reporting on activities impacting health.

You may not like it, but it doesn’t make the facts of the matter untrue.

Same as tobacco use. Or alcohol use. Or riding a motorcycle without a helmet.

It would be inconsistent not to identify the rise in rural crime and firearms related injuries and deaths associated with firearms hunting seasons.

Denying they occur is denying the obvious.

Flawed does not begin to describe it.


Homicide rate, by gun in Chicago, Democrapically run per 100,000 = 28
Homicide rate USA = 5.4

Shooting (not homicide) week prior to hunting season = 1
Shooting (not homicide) Week 1 hunting season in article per 100,000 = 1.49
Shooting (not homicide) Week 2 hunting season in article per 100,000 = 1.30
Shooting (not homicide) Week 3 hunting season in article per 100,000 = .85

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Ander%20testimony.pdf

Having read the study this is what I see. Limited data was used. There were six states not counted in their analysis. Who knows what the results might be if they were included. They relied on only a single source of data on “gun violence”. The source is Gun Violence Archive. Not the DOJ or FBI. I can’t find a definition of what the researchers refer to as “firearm violence”. As does the press, the researchers allow a nebulous phrase to be the center of their work. Missing is any indication trying to explain when their trend began or if it has been constant. Missing also is any mention of overflow rural crime such as robbery, theft, etc. that may show similar trend lines to their original claim. Very slim reference section. Can’t believe that was all one can find on this topic. Perhaps the most egregious omission is the lack of anything qualitative in their study. If anything has texture that needs to be examined it is this topic as it sits at the heart of rural America. A place academics rarely visit.

It really does look as if the researchers had concluded the results and backfilled with data. I would have expected more from JAMA. It gives one the idea that politics played a big role in publication.

Many things impact health. There was a time that medical journals followed a fact and science based peer review process. Opinion was not a standard of health care. Medicine has become cluttered with the promotion of social agenda, maybe similar to the auto industry where sales are lackluster for things we are shamed into, but don’t really want.

JAMA isn’t going to stake their reputation on bad science. You guys act like nobody else looks at it before they publish it. There is always a battle for page space. If your research model is crap, you get ripped worldwide before it gets anywhere close to the publisher.
I took the time to read each of the links, and the authors in my view adequately explained their research motivations.

It should be no surprise that people devoted to advancing the health of people publish articles identifying places where the health of people is affected.

The best analog I can come up with, is the compulsory use of hunter orange in eastern states. Firearms injuries during firearms hunting seasons, decline precipitously after the adoption of hunter orange.
I doubt it’s adoption was any kind of conspiracy led by the safety orange dye industry.

Plenty of people still hate the idea of wearing hunter orange. Doesn’t change the facts however.



I wear it because I don’t want you to shoot me accidentally.

You sound like an expert on the academic medical publishing industry, craig. So where do you come by these expert analyses?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

By rifle, far below handgun. What is a "rifle" to them. IDK

Also I found 6.3 per 100k total USA rate. Not 5.4. That difference is the "increase" that they tout.