Gyroscopic Investing

"Younger Americans die earlier and live in poorer health than their counterparts in other developed countries, with far higher rates of death from guns, car accidents and drug addiction, according to a new analysis of health and longevity in the United States."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/healt ... .html?_r=0

"Car accidents, gun violence and drug overdoses were major contributors to years of life lost by Americans before age 50."

"The rate of firearm homicides was 20 times higher in the United States than in the other countries, according to the report, which cited a 2011 study of 23 countries. And though suicide rates were lower in the United States, firearm suicide rates were six times higher."

"Panelists were surprised at just how consistently Americans ended up at the bottom of the rankings."

Studies like this have to be carefully scrutinized before their results are taken at face value. In this one, it's obvious that they cherry-picked countries to compare us with in order to produce a worse result. Their criterion was "other high-income democracies," which consists of this arbitrary-looking list:

Austria, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, The Netherlands, and the UK.

Notice how they excluded Eastern Europe, South America, and most of Asia. Even in Western Europe, the omissions seem random. What about Sweden? Why didn't they make the cut? No Luxembourg? Belgium? Ireland? Iceland? Guess these countries weren't rich enough. 

The entire data set seems totally biased from the start, which explains the results. If you broaden the search to include more of those perfectly nice countries that were omitted, I'd imagine that we turn out to be in the middle of the pack.

Never forget the bias of the researchers or the reporters when consuming this type of media. There are a lot of elitist think-tanks constantly producing biased studies like this to lend support to advocates of single-payer health care systems and gun control that are designed for their conclusions to be reported in friendly news media and their faulty methods ignored. And the New York Times has a strong bias to compare the USA with Western Europe and find us wanting.

Also, from reading the report itself, it seems that it was commissioned by the NIH, a government agency. This is yet another great example of the collusion between government and the private sector. The NIH commissioned a private agency to produce a report validating what the NIH was already being told to advocate for, presumably by the Obama administration.


You can read the full report yourself here: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13497

I like how gun violence is listed as one of the 3 named early contributors of early death in spite of homicide being something like 15th cause of death in the US. Nah, not skewed journalism at all.

Right you are, TripleB. Taken straight from the CDC WISQARS site, here's what really kills Americans:



See for yourself at http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10_us.html

Looking at that chart, you might wonder what all the unintentional injuries are. Mostly cars, it turns out.



Half a million people were killed by cars between 1999 and 2010. Wow.

Car accidents, gun violence and drug overdoses were major contributors to years of life lost by Americans before age 50

This shows the NYTimes' bias so well. Looking at the actual data shows that while car accidents were indeed the #1 killer, "gun violence" is far down the list and drug overdoses are nowhere to be seen:



Oops, looks like they forgot about heart disease and cancer. What awful reporting, and what awful scholarship. It' such a shame that a lot of people will read this tripe and believe it without looking at the data for themseleves.

Pointedstick wrote: This shows the NYTimes' bias so well. Looking at the actual data shows that while car accidents were indeed the #1 killer, "gun violence" is far down the list and drug overdoses are nowhere to be seen:

Oops, looks like they forgot about heart disease and cancer. What awful reporting, and what awful scholarship. It' such a shame that a lot of people will read this tripe and believe it without looking at the data for themseleves.

I strongly agree with you that the "gun violence" nonsense bit is quite imaginary.  MT's Orwell quote about newspapers comes to mind. 

But could the drug overdose be classified under "Unintentional Injury" as "Unintentional Poisoning"?  It looks like that's a big killer.

Frankly. I'm surprised they mentioned drug overdose at all.  It's a distraction from the real killers the media has helped educate me about.  You know, like "assault weapons", mad cow disease, and shark attacks. 

dkalder wrote: "Car accidents, gun violence and drug overdoses were major contributors to years of life lost by Americans before age 50."

Seems to me some folks are not reading the quote correctly.  It doesn't say "major causes of death", but rather "major contributors to years of life lost".  If you assume an average life span of 80 years, someone who dies at age 20 (from, say, gun violence) has lost 60 years of life while someone who dies at 40 (from, say, a heart attack) has lost 40 years.  You can't just count up the totals in all the 1-50 age groups - you have to weight the earlier totals higher (by the relative number of years of life lost).

I'm not sufficiently interested in this topic to do this exercise myself, since even without this weighting homicide (which we're presumably taking as a proxy for "gun violence") is already in the top 5 (which I'd consider "major").  Weighted by years of life lost, it looks like it will be even higher.

rickb wrote:

dkalder wrote: "Car accidents, gun violence and drug overdoses were major contributors to years of life lost by Americans before age 50."

Seems to me some folks are not reading the quote correctly.  It doesn't say "major causes of death", but rather "major contributors to years of life lost".

The problem is that this is a subjective term vulnerable to manipulation. Even if homicide was at #10, you could still say it was a "major contributors to years of life lost". It doesn't say anything.

rickb wrote: I'm not sufficiently interested in this topic to do this exercise myself

I am! Let me do it for you. The CDC doesn't let you go below age 65, so here's he breakdown for that.



Looks to me like homicide (of which only about 70% is committed with a firearm) comprises only 5% of the years of life lost. Again, not what I would call a "major contributors to years of life lost."

Simonjester wrote: statistics you don't hear about... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0&feature=player_embedded


Between 1992 and 2011, the violent crime rate in the U.S. has fallen by almost 50 percent (from 757.7 per 100,000 to 386.3 per 100,000).
The murder rate in 2011 rate was 4.7 per 100,000, down from 1992’s 9.3 per 100,000. That’s a 54 percent decrease.
In metropolitan areas where the population is greater than 250,000, the violent crime rate is double that of the national average.
In metropolitan areas where the population is greater than 250,000, the murder rate is double that of the national average.
according to this guy (and FBI statistics) it is small pockets of high violence in large population centers that skew the American stat's toward high levels of violence and gun related death, meaning that for most people in most areas of the us the rates are much lower.

And of course it is not permissible to ask if there is any racial component to these numbers, e.g., whether some races have much more (or much less) than their proportionate shares of any of these reasons for lost years of life.

Wow, cancer is shockingly prevalent and not just in old people.

Libertarian666 wrote: And of course it is not permissible to ask if there is any racial component to these numbers, e.g., whether some races have much more (or much less) than their proportionate shares of any of these reasons for lost years of life.

Its not race, they just happen to be clustered in polluted urban areas: http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/in ... 5.msg54721

MachineGhost wrote: Wow, cancer is shockingly prevalent and not just in old people.

The categories are pretty broad, the stand out for me was HIV given that it's specific, preventable and to some extent maintainable.
I had honestly thought it was no longer an issue.

Anyone want to take a guess what percent of all of those homicide numbers by firearm are between gang members regarding illegal drug distribution? I'd guess more than half, which brings the actual "problem" of firearms significantly lower.

In other words, what percent of firearm homicides are a direct result of US Law (drug prohibition law)? I don't know the answer and I doubt anyone tracks it because the only group who's capable of tracking it has an incentive not to look stupid by revealing the results.

TripleB wrote: Anyone want to take a guess what percent of all of those homicide numbers by firearm are between gang members regarding illegal drug distribution? I'd guess more than half, which brings the actual "problem" of firearms significantly lower.

In other words, what percent of firearm homicides are a direct result of US Law (drug prohibition law)? I don't know the answer and I doubt anyone tracks it because the only group who's capable of tracking it has an incentive not to look stupid by revealing the results.

The FBI actually tracks this, albeit poorly: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... a-table-11

The data is pretty ambiguous since 3/4 of the homicides are classified as "other" or "unknown." Basically, the FBI doesn't know.

I love how these people fail to consider the fact that the United States is a very diverse country, and the state gun homicide rates vary by a factor of 24x.

0.43 gun homicides per 100,000 people in my home state of New Hampshire (we have overall lowest violent crime rate)
10.13 gun homicides per 100,000 people in Louisiana

The variance is interesting, but the reasons are probably complex.  Journalists aren't good at subtleties like that.

edsanville wrote: 0.43 gun homicides per 100,000 people in my home state of New Hampshire (we have overall lowest violent crime rate)
10.13 gun homicides per 100,000 people in Louisiana

How is that possible? NH allows people to conceal a firearm without a permit, no training, or regulation. Anyone who wants to carry a gun can do it without proving to the government they are safe with it. I would think there's blood in the streets as Rambos play shoot-em-up in the streets.

I know it's NOT the fact that NH is 93% white, 7% minority, whereas Louisiana is 63% white, 37% minority, because it's racist to think black people commit more crimes so that's not a contributing factor at all:

http://statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=6&cat=1

It's clearly an issue of guns. Louisiana must have more guns than NH.

TripleB, I think you're confusing NH with VT. NH doesn't have constitutional carry, but they do have shall-issue CCW permitting.

It also couldn't have anything to do with the fact that NH is a rich place without many large urban areas, while LA is largely poor with a huge urban area.

Nope, gotta be the guns. Restricting New Hampshire residents' gun rights will so totally clean up Louisiana. It's just gotta work.

Pointedstick wrote: TripleB, I think you're confusing NH with VT. NH doesn't have constitutional carry, but they do have shall-issue CCW permitting.

It also couldn't have anything to do with the fact that NH is a rich place without many large urban areas, while LA is largely poor with a huge urban area.

Nope, gotta be the guns. Restricting New Hampshire residents' gun rights will so totally clean up Louisiana. It's just gotta work.

You're right, I mixed up VT and NH. There must be blood in the streets in VT.

As far as NH gun rights, if restricting them to a reasonable degree even saves one life in Louisiana, then it's worth it.

My anti-gun father teaches a few times a year in VT. I haven't the heart to tell him that any of his students or colleagues could potentially be packing. Or, for that matter, any of the grocery store checkout people, bank tellers, hotel attendants, or ice cream scoopers.

Pointedstick wrote: My anti-gun father teaches a few times a year in VT. I haven't the heart to tell him that any of his students or colleagues could potentially be packing. Or, for that matter, any of the grocery store checkout people, bank tellers, hotel attendants, or ice cream scoopers.

Ice cream scoopers don't need to conceal assault weapons with high capacity magazines! Oh the humanity!

Pointedstick wrote: My anti-gun father teaches a few times a year in VT. I haven't the heart to tell him that any of his students or colleagues could potentially be packing. Or, for that matter, any of the grocery store checkout people, bank tellers, hotel attendants, or ice cream scoopers.

The sooner you get him out of his delusion, the better.

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: My anti-gun father teaches a few times a year in VT. I haven't the heart to tell him that any of his students or colleagues could potentially be packing. Or, for that matter, any of the grocery store checkout people, bank tellers, hotel attendants, or ice cream scoopers.

The sooner you get him out of his delusion, the better.

*Sigh* If only. Some dogs you really can't teach new tricks to. My dad's one of 'em when it comes to anything even remotely political. I'm sure you know the type.

Pointedstick wrote: *Sigh* If only. Some dogs you really can't teach new tricks to. My dad's one of 'em when it comes to anything even remotely political. I'm sure you know the type.

Yes, but politics is 99% mental bullshit aka False Evidence Appearing Real.  So your dad needs to relate some real-world, non-scary experiences of actual guns and defuse his mental propaganda.  Whats with the hesitation?  Just state the facts nonchalantly, leave him alone and let him deal with the fallout.  That's the only way people change in my experience.

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: *Sigh* If only. Some dogs you really can't teach new tricks to. My dad's one of 'em when it comes to anything even remotely political. I'm sure you know the type.

Yes, but politics is 99% mental bullshit aka False Evidence Appearing Real.  So your dad needs to relate some real-world, non-scary experiences of actual guns and defuse his mental propaganda.  Whats with the hesitation?  Just state the facts nonchalantly, leave him alone and let him deal with the fallout.  That's the only way people change in my experience.

That might work for you, but it doesn't work for him. It's easy for us INTJ-ish folks to assume that everyone out there is on a big search for truth. Most aren't. Rather, most are looking to believe what feels good or reinforces the choices they've already made or plugs into a worldview they won't let go of. For a lot of people, it's basically a matter of "Guns = violence = bad; Guns = supported by Republicans = bad." Unwinding that would require touching on a whole host of interrelated issues like one's feelings about the value of defensive force, opinion of one's fellow man, intellectual soundness of one's view of government, assessment of the social contract or belief in a lack thereof, and so on an so forth.

I once tried to show my mother my guns and give her a nice, rational demonstration of how they work, and explain why I have them. The whole time, she had on this face like she was sucking on a lemon. They're just too icky. It was like I was trying to explain the value of having a pile of dog crap in a bowl on the table 24/7. And she's even more open-minded than my father is!

It's just not worth it to try to change someone who doesn't want to change, I've decided. I'd rather have a semblance of a relationship with my father than rile him up about something he's already decided is bad and that's that.