Sunday, March 17, 2013

States With Weak Gun Control Laws Have More Murders - Not Just Gun Murders

The ten worst and ten best states according to the Brady State Scoreboard

Murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate per 100,000 inhabitants in the United States in 2011 according to Statista


Utah   1.9
Arizona   6.2
Alaska   4
Oklahoma   5.5
North Dakota   3.5
Montana   2.8
Louisiana  11.2
Kentucky   3.5
Idaho   2.3
Wisconsin  2.4
Average  4.33

New Jersey   4.3
Massachusetts  2.8
New York   4
Connecticut   3.6
Hawaii   1.2
Maryland   6.8
Rhode Island  1.3
Illinois   5.6
Pennsylvania  5
Michigan   6.2
Average  4.08

Further to a very tedious comment thread in which TS put forth some unbelievable propositions, I did some research myself. You know I hate to do that, I prefer using my head and trying to determine what's what by logic. But, what a surprise, when I did the research, it jived perfectly with my ideas that more guns in a particular state means that state will have more murders, not just gun murders.

The reason this makes sense is because most murders are done with guns. What could be simpler?

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


14 comments:

  1. And yet, when you apply the FBI Uniform Crime Rate information on overall violent crime, the average is reversed. More free states (low Brady score) had and average of 349.76, while less free states (high Brady score) the average was 380.65. This was in 2010 as that is the last year that the UCR has data on.

    And then there's places like Chicago, which has this caveat (when you go into the local agencies portion of the UCR tool for Illinois):

    Chicago Police Dept Illinois 2010 - The data collection methodology for the offense of forcible rape used by the Chicago, Illinois, does not comply with national Uniform Crime Reporting Program guidelines. Consequently, its figures for forcible rape and violent crime (of which forcible rape is a part) are not included in this Tool.

    Huh, not included. Wonder how bad Illinois REALLY is? And it's one of your good states...

    Funny how it works when you look at the big picture, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mikeb, it would be really good if you'd use logic. You'd make sense. Look at the data provided here. It supports my side. The difference between the ten best and ten worst states (you reversed the classification, but that's to be expected) is only .25 murders per hundred thousand in a year. That's a quarter of a person. That's all your gun laws appear to do.

    But it's even worse than that. Maryland and Illinois have strict (wretched) gun laws, and yet their homicide rates are higher than every one of the good states except Louisiana and Arizona, and they're close to the latter. Note that Vermont isn't listed, even though its Brady Bunch score is low.

    What we see here is that, once again, rates of violence correlate to population density, but not to gun laws. Why can't you see that? You can't show me a picture of a horse and expect me to agree that it's a swan. Your own data show what we've been telling you all along.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The difference is not sufficient to indicate any significant effect from gun laws. That's the point here. Your own research here shows that there's no effect. Your own research shows that states with high population density are more dangerous.

      Delete
  3. Keep going down the rabbit hole, Mike. You’ll note than when I did a “top ten vs. bottom ten” comparison I prefaced it by saying “It is not nearly as comprehensive” (as the Pearson calculation). I only did that because it is easier to visualize, and it seemed to be what you were asking. Will you admit this is not comprehensive? Your data only includes 20 of the 50 states, and does not factor in what the Brady score is, only whether it falls in the top or bottom ten (FYI, you cut off CA and included MI- but they both are over the average and won’t change your results much). For example, your set cuts off with a Brady score of 3, leaving off another state with 3 and ten more states tied at 4. The thing about Brady scores is that they are heavily skewed to the bottom. At least the gun ownership rate is has a pretty even distribution. So keep going, Mike. How do you factor in all the states, and also factor in what the Brady scores are? Hint: it’s what I did.

    By the way, I want to thank you for continuing this discussion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of the original ideas is that gun availability is not the only factor, but it is one. Greg says if you remove this one and replace it with that one, you say average the other 30 states, well I say my percentages are what they are in spite of a few really bad cities like Chicago and Baltimore. Remove them and it swings even more in my favor.

      Gun control works. This is what you fight so hard to deny, but try as you might, you cannot escape the obvious truth.

      Delete
    2. If you claim that gun control works, then show us. We're not going to believe you on faith. Your data here don't show that.

      Delete
    3. Mike, you are not refuting the numbers I showed you. All you did was take a subsection of data that is slightly in your favor and conclude "ah ha! Proof!". You ignored the pieces that don't fit your agenda. What I showed you was a comprehensive analysis. Why don't you tell me what is wrong with what I did?

      To show you how harrowing your numbers are: if the Bradys gave one less point to Wyoming, the difference goes away. Or if they gave one more point to Louisiana, your numbers get turned on their head. How can such teetering numbers be conclusive proof that gun control works?

      Delete
    4. Some reading for you, Mike:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_correlation_coefficient

      The math is not on your side.

      Delete
    5. What I object to is you seem to be saying that guns have nothing to do with it. That's not true. The idea that there are multiple factors involved in violence is one I believe in, but you have to include gun availability.

      Delete
    6. Sure guns have something to do with it, but on both sides- good and bad. The math says no effect on net murders, and possibly a positive effect on violent crime where there are more guns. You certainly can't claim gun control saves lives when there is no positive change in murder rates associated with it.

      Delete
    7. And as TS suggested, since gun control shows no benefit with regard to saving lives, and since it does infringe on the rights of good citizens, there is no justification for gun control in a free society.

      Delete
  4. States with more blacks have more murders too.

    Das rasis!

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's articles like this that make me despair for humanity. Mikeb, you present numbers that to me clearly show one result, while you see the exact opposite. This is why the older I get, the more libertarian I become. Since agreement is largely impossible, just let people do as they will.

    ReplyDelete