In the rural United States, an adolescent who drinks heavily has a 43% greater probability of carrying a handgun in the following year, according to a study published this month in The Journal of Rural Health.
“While there has been a lot of research on this correlation in urban areas, little is known about the association between alcohol use, particularly heavy drinking, and handgun carrying in rural areas,” said lead author Alice Ellyson, an acting assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington School of Medicine and investigator in UW Medicine’s Firearm Injury & Policy Research Program.
Youg men like guns.
Young men like alcohol.
In rural areas young men normally have more access to both and they’re more likely to already take part in activities with guns. Like pest control, hunting.
Also guns are fun!
Drinking is also fun!
Doing those together is more fun! But stupid.
Young men are stupid.
Source: am man
There isn’t much here to think about.
Yet some young men don’t like alcohol, and they are more likely not to like guns. It’s an interesting correlation that should be further studied. Not sure why you think there isn’t much here to think about.
Because it makes no sense. The headline is implying that drinking leads you to buying a gun directly. That’s dumb. Drinking could lead you to make reckless decisions. So, it’s possible that drinking increases your chance to make an impulse purchase, and that purchase might be a gun. But that’s not causation.
If you read the article it basically states the same thing. It basically states that drinking can increase violence, and drinking can also lead to unsafe handling of firearms. So, the cause of violence here is alcohol.
And the final nail in the coffin is the following quote: “The authors say their findings can inform strategies to discourage drinking and thereby decrease the likelihood of handgun-carrying among youth and young adults in rural areas.” So, the goal isn’t to decrease violence. It’s to decrease handgun carrying among young adults.
Also, a sample size of 2000 12-26 year olds? That’s about 142 per age, which is not too bad, but in my opinion 12-17, 18-20, 21-26 are vastly different groups. They themselves state that 19-26 is where the most drinking/gun owning occurs, which makes sense. That’s when you are allowed to legally purchase a gun and that’s when you and your friends start to drink. You could say the same thing about owning a car. But if I told you that drinking is linked to purchasing a car, you’d think that’s stupid.
To me this is clearly someone with an agenda.
So, it’s possible that drinking increases your chance to make an impulse purchase, and that purchase might be a gun. But that’s not causation.
It’s not causation, and I’m not trying to imply it is. But it is a correlation, and that is interesting enough on its own.
If you read the article it basically states the same thing. It basically states that drinking can increase violence, and drinking can also lead to unsafe handling of firearms. So, the cause of violence here is alcohol.
I don’t care about the cause of violence, I care about the correlation.
And the final nail in the coffin is the following quote: “The authors say their findings can inform strategies to discourage drinking and thereby decrease the likelihood of handgun-carrying among youth and young adults in rural areas.” So, the goal isn’t to decrease violence. It’s to decrease handgun carrying among young adults.
Carrying handguns among young adults leads to increased violence. Having “decreased handgun carrying” as a goal seems completely fine to me as long as people still have a choice.
Also, a sample size of 2000 12-26 year olds? That’s about 142 per age, which is not too bad, but in my opinion 12-17, 18-20, 21-26 are vastly different groups. They themselves state that 19-26 is where the most drinking/gun owning occurs, which makes sense.
That sample size seems completely fine. Which measure exactly isn’t to your liking? Can you be specific about what n or P you’d expect?
You could say the same thing about owning a car. But if I told you that drinking is linked to purchasing a car, you’d think that’s stupid.
Yeah, I think you misunderstand the study. Of course I’d be very interested in knowing whether people who drink are more likely to buy a car. Why would I think that’s stupid? Explain it clearly to me.
But I think I understand - you don’t want people to lose access to guns, so it’s easier to declare the study to be “stupid” than to accept the correlation as reality. The problem is that the study isn’t making any judgements or publishing any guidance - it just presents a correlation. You shouldn’t reject studies because you don’t like possible future implications.
discourage drinking and thereby decrease the likelihood of handgun-carrying
correlation ≠ causation
Name a dumber and more dangerous combo. I’ll wait.
Japanese cultists and ricin. But only a little bit dumber and more dangerous.
Creating responsible gun owners early.
When adults don’t care ya gotta gang up
I don’t think the to are related if it only presented itself in rural America and no where else. If a similar thing happened in either urban US, or rural Russia, it could be more easy to link it to it being drinking that causes that. This study has to many variables
