Durango P-51 Crash - Med Tests Show Pilot Was Stoned on Marijuana

[FlyingElvii]

"the Durango pilot who crashed a World War II aircraft on July 4, 2014 had marijuana levels above the legal limit in his blood.

According to the report by the National Transportation Safety Board, John Earley’s blood tested positive for 6.3 nanograms of THC, above Colorado’s legal driving limit of 5 nanograms, The Durango Herald says"

http://fox21news.com/2016/07/31/report-says-pilot-who-crashed-wwii-aircraft-had-marijuana-in-system/

Stupid, stupid, stupid...
Rack up two more deaths attributable to Colorado's Pot Legalization laws...

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Of course tougher gun laws would help.

Have to ask, where are the studies to back that up?

I think the majority of serious studies have failed to show an effect. Of course, one has to study particular laws.

But for example, the Brady Bill, responsible for background checks, is thought to have had no effect in reducing violent crime.

Same for the assault weapons ban when it was in effect.

It strikes me that proposing to deprive people of the ability to own certain pieces of personal property to be used for self defense should be backed by clear and compelling data. It just isn't there.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Because a certain powerful lobby has paid their benefactors in Congress to forbid the study of exactly that since 1997.

There actually have been many studies of these various effects. They just haven't been paid for by the Federal government. See for example the two I mentioned earlier.

Have a look at the CDC report which was produced at the administration's request after the Newtown murders, though. Even it's abstract is quite interesting. It doesn't find much evidence for gun control restrictions decreasing violence though, so hasn't been much quoted in the media.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

What was the statistic that got the NRA mad at the CDC? Oh. That's right. The statistical likelihood of a homicide occurring in a home is dramatically higher when a gun is in that home.

The problems with that report, assuming you are referring to the Kellerman study, were several fold.

1. It is sort of like saying that we look into the refrigerators of obese people and found they had a statistically higher likelihood of having diet sodas. Therefore, diet sodas cause obesity.

2. It did not actually study whether the guns which were in the home were the ones used in the homicides.

3. It was based on a very small number counties and matched control counties. The conclusions did not appear to hold up on a broader basis.

Given these problems, the Kellerman study has been fairly widely criticized in the research community. I believe the authors themselves have acknowledged it has been over-interpreted by people repeating this sound-bite statistic.

So I think it is fairly appropriate for serious researchers to be concerned with this type of research being broadly promoted to the public.

Any other studies you would suggest show that gun control laws work?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

... I'm not suggesting that the annoyance is that because of that one study, all future study can't be done to either expand upon that research or refute it.

Let's be precise here. There is a prohibition on using federal tax dollars by a single federal agency. There is no general prohibition and there have been many subsequent studies on the subject, they just haven't been paid for by the CDC.

If the research is done and says gun control laws don't work, then so be it.

I think that is what an objective view of the many studies which have been performed would suggest. But it really is best to discuss specific policies and studies.

Which studies do you suggest indicate that gun control reduces violent crime? Let's discuss those - I think that is the way to actually understand the issues.

I do think that finding out where guns used in crimes are coming from is a worthy goal, and exploring ways of preventing that access is good.

We know that 93% of firearms used in crimes are obtained illegally. So any effect of policies on the remainder is unlikely to affect more than 7% of crime with firearms. That potential good has to be weighed against the negative effects of gun control policies, including costs of enforcement, monetary and human, as well as other potential impacts, such as preventing victims from defending themselves effectively.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Ok let's go through these points one at a time. First the two easy ones:

The FBI data suggests higher incidences of aggravated assault with firearms in states with fewer gun laws (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-22).

Is there data there regarding the number of firearms laws and that correlation? I missed it.

70% of the homicides in this country are from the barrel end of a firearm.(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm)

This particularly says nothing about how to reduce violent crime and whether gun control would work - does it?

I'll review the other study later.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

It absolutely does not say anything about how to reduce violent crime. Like I said, the information I provided was just correlation. No comprehensive studies on reducing gun violence. It's just correlation. Which, again, is part of the problem. It's tough finding good data that is just... data.

While I agree that correlation does not imply causality in and of itself, correlations can suggest possible causative mechanisms and when properly considered, can suggest policies which may or may not work.

I can't agree there are no good studies on these subjects. Some are fairly well done and convincing, though none of these results in social sciences are going have the certainty of an aeronautical research study.

Some of the stronger results concern the effect of implementing shall issue concealed carry permit laws. The general finding is that passing such laws, which make it easier for people to concealed carry a firearm, appears to have the effect of reducing violent crime by a modest, but statistically significant, amount. These studies are stronger because this effect happens over and over again in states in different years when the states passed the laws and that was controlling for a large number of other possible confounding variables like racial composition, poverty levels, etc.

As I said, I'll have a look at the JAMA study and its critics a bit later.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I would genuinely love to see that data whenever you get a chance to find it. Thank you!

Some of the best work on this subject has been done by Dr. John Lott. I think the best general introduction is his book "More Guns, Less Crime" which is available here:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0...X0DER&pf_rd_r=1EVK7W2Y6MDD1DBWR57G&pldnSite=1

The first review there from May 12, 2013 mirrors my reaction and experience pretty closely. Of course one can also go and read the actual papers, which are references in the book as well as his critics to get a more in-depth understanding.

Lott has updated that presentation several times over the last decade. The datasets underlying that work are available here:
http://crimeresearch.org/data/

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Neither gun control, nor religion or abortion have anything to do with flying under the influence.

Not directly, though in the case of gun control and abortion, all involve attempts to use the law to prohibit an action or object which a large number of people find moral and desirable. I think the question of prohibition and its effectiveness, or lack thereof, is how the thread drifted off in these directions.