CDZ Gun deaths in all states per capita

[ding]

It is manifestly obvious.

Then it should be easy to explain. So explain it to me.

 

[ding]

There are studies showing a relationship between gun ownership and gun violence.

Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

The Center aims to reduce the societal burden of injury and violence through surveillance, research, intervention, evaluation, outreach, and training.

www.hsph.harvard.edu

The assumption would then be attempting to limit or reduce the number of guns in circulation to see if there is any sort of causal relationship.

You said studies. This is only one study and it doesn’t even show what you claimed.

Where’s the other studies?

 

[2aguy]

There are studies showing a relationship between gun ownership and gun violence.

Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

The Center aims to reduce the societal burden of injury and violence through surveillance, research, intervention, evaluation, outreach, and training.

www.hsph.harvard.edu

The assumption would then be attempting to limit or reduce the number of guns in circulation to see if there is any sort of causal relationship.

Wrong...you were wrong the moment you used any research by David Hemenway.......he is a rabid, anti-gun fanatic......

 

[ding]

Wrong...you were wrong the moment you used any research by David Hemenway.......he is a rabid, anti-gun fanatic......

She never even read it.

 

[2aguy]

There are studies showing a relationship between gun ownership and gun violence.

Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

The Center aims to reduce the societal burden of injury and violence through surveillance, research, intervention, evaluation, outreach, and training.

www.hsph.harvard.edu

The assumption would then be attempting to limit or reduce the number of guns in circulation to see if there is any sort of causal relationship.

Wrong...this is how those studies lie.......

So let’s briefly recap. Gun Murder Rate is not correlated with firearm ownership rate in the United States, on a state by state basis. Firearm Homicide Rate is not correlated with guns per capita globally. It’s not correlated with guns per capita among peaceful countries, nor among violent countries, nor among European countries. So what in the heck is going on in the media, where we are constantly berated with signaling indicating that “more guns = more murder?”
---

One: They’re sneaking suicide in with the data, and then obfuscating that inclusion with rhetoric.​

This is the biggest trick I see in the media,
---

Two: They’re cooking the homicide data.​

First off, they didn’t use actual gun ownership rates. They used fractional suicide-by-gun rates as a proxy for gun ownership. This is a very common technique by gun policy researchers, but the results of that analysis ended up being very different from the ownership data in the Injury Prevention journal in my first graph of the article.
--
Second, they didn’t look only at guns. They looked at a wide array of possible factors that would influence gun homicide, and controlled against them in a complex, multivariate analysis. Generally, I would characterize this as the proper approach. Here is a quote from the study:
----
So let’s start by clearing the air. The two primary correlations they found were not guns, they were income inequality and black population ratio. Does this mean that we can reduce firearm homicide by getting rid of black people?

No.

No it does not.

Don’t even go there.
---
The main difference here, is they’re leaving off data they don’t want you to see. Guns-per-capita varies widely across these data points. Certainly the USA tops the list, but Switzerland at 24 guns per 100 inhabitants has five times more homicides than New Zealand at around 30 guns per 100 inhabitants. Germany has around 30 guns per 100 inhabitants and they’ve got a gun homicide rate that’s a third of Belgium’s, who only have around 17 guns per 100 inhabitants. So Vox has a nice graph here, but they’re intentionally omitting data that would unravel their case.
Further, they’re excluding data points. The USA is #10 in “Human Development Index” according to the current rankings as of March 2018. Norway and Iceland are ahead of us on the HDI rank, but are missing from the graphic. Curiously, both of these countries have over 30 guns per 100 inhabitants as well.
So let’s pause for a moment, purely because this is pretty fun, and look at that HDI list. Norway (31.3 guns per 100 inhabitants), Switzerland (24.5 guns per 100 inhabitants), Germany (30.3 guns per 100 inhabitants), Iceland (30.3 guns per 100 inhabitants) and Canada (30.8 guns per 100 inhabitants) are all higher than the USA on the list, making it six of the top ten HDI ranked countries at over 24 guns per 100 inhabitants.

There are only 15 countries in the world with gun ownership rates this high, and 6 are in the top ten of HDI rank.
-----
Note the subtle rhetorical bait and switch. First Vox initiates a very noticeable, very specific conversation about homicide, while leaving the “ownership” data out, and then they subtly switch to a graph which is dominated by suicide numbers without mentioning the word “suicide” once, to make you think they’re still talking about homicide, when they actually aren’t. Then they follow that graph up immediately with this one:
---


One: This graph has also snuck suicide, accidents, police shootings and such in the back door, without alerting the reader of the bait and switch.


Two: This graph is leaving out a whole bunch of countries, carefully and selectively omitted to funnel the data into a trend.


Three: this graph is leaving out the most important number on the whole thing, which is the R^2 number. What level of correlation we have in this data is absolutely unclear. The only thing that actually draws your eye to believe in a correlation is the trendline itself. If you hide the USA for a moment, and erase the trendline, the data looks like a big uncorrelated mess. If you strip out suicide and accidents, it will become even more uncorrelated. If you add in all the countries they left out, you get an exact replica of my second graph in this article, which shows no correlation.


These are the tricks being played. The only way to even engage in this dialog rationally is to understand how the tricks work and keep an eye out for them. Especially when reading Vox, Mother Jones, Everytown for Gun Safety, and by transitive property, MSNBC, CNN, and the majority of the Blue Church sources, who use Everytown and such as blindly trusted sources when they publish their hastily thrown together articles on gun violence in the wake of one of our seemingly semi-annual yet statistically insignificant school shooting incidents.

Everybody's Lying About the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide

 

[2aguy]

There are studies showing a relationship between gun ownership and gun violence.

Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

The Center aims to reduce the societal burden of injury and violence through surveillance, research, intervention, evaluation, outreach, and training.

www.hsph.harvard.edu

The assumption would then be attempting to limit or reduce the number of guns in circulation to see if there is any sort of causal relationship.

Now the truth...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-gun-laws-tend-to-have-the-fewest-gun-deaths/

In any case, we were curious to see what would happen if suicides were removed from the totals. After all, rural areas (which may have less-restrictive gun laws) have a lot of suicides of older single men who become lonely. So we ran the numbers — and in some cases, it made a huge difference.
Alaska, ranked 50th on the National Journal list, moved up to 25th place. Utah, 31st on the list, jumped to 8th place. Hawaii remains in 1st place, but the top six now include Vermont, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Iowa and Maine. Indeed, half of the 10 states with the lowest gun-death rates turn out to be states with less-restrictive gun laws.
Meanwhile, Maryland — a more urban state — fell from 15th place to 45th, even though it has very tough gun laws. Illinois dropped from 11th place to 38th, and New York fell from 3rd to 15th.

******************
Do Strict Firearm Laws Give States Lower Gun Death Rates?

Once you get past those six states, the hypothesis that low gun death rates go hand in hand with strict gun control starts to break down. New Hampshire, with a gun death rate just a little higher than New Jersey's, has permissive gun policies. Likewise Minnesota, Washington, Vermont, Wisconsin, and South Dakota, all of which have gun death rates of 10 or less per 100,000. New Hampshire and Minnesota have lower rates than California, Illinois, the District of Columbia, and Maryland, all of which have substantially stricter gun rules.

At the other end of the list, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming have both permissive gun policies and high gun death rates, ranging from around 17 to nearly 20 per 100,000. But of these six states, only Louisiana has a very high gun murder rate (based on 2010 data). The rate in Mississippi is fairly high but still lower than in D.C. or Maryland, which have much stricter gun laws. Alaska, Wyoming, Alabama, and Arkansas have lower gun murder rates than California, which has more gun restrictions.

Although its overall analysis looks at all gun-related deaths, National Journal (after some prodding, judging from the note in italics) focuses on gun homicides in charts that compare states based on three policies: whether they impose a duty to retreat, whether they require background checks for all gun sales, and whether they issue carry permits to anyone who meets a short list of objective criteria. Excluding suicides makes sense for at least two of those comparisons, since you would not expect the rules for self-defense or for carrying guns in public to affect suicide rates. Background checks conceivably could, since among other things they are supposed to prevent gun purchases by people who were forcibly subjected to psychiatric treatment because they were deemed a threat to themselves.

According to the first chart, the average rate of gun-related homicides in states with "some form of 'stand your ground' law" in 2013 was 4.23 per 100,000, compared to 3.08 in the other states. (Oddly, Arkansas is included in the former category, although its "stand your ground" law was not enacted until this year.) States that did not require background checks for private sales also had a higher average gun homicide rate: 4.02 per 100,000, compared to 3.41 for the other states. But the average rates were the same (3.78 per 100,000) regardless of whether states had discretionary or "must issue" carry permit policies, which is consistent with the observation that permit holders rarely commit violent crimes.

Some states were excluded from these analyses, and the reason is revealing. The fine print at the bottom of the charts says "Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming had too few homicides in 2013 to calculate a reliable rate" (emphasis added).

These are all states with permissive gun laws, and three of them are among the seven states with the highest overall gun death rates, which highlights the importance of distinguishing between suicides and homicides. Had National Journal's main analysis excluded suicides, some of the states with few gun controls, including Alaska and Wyoming, would have looked much safer.


"The states with the most gun laws see the fewest gun-related deaths," say the headline and subhead over the National Journal post, "but there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions." The implication is that the data prove a cause-and-effect relationship. But the question of whether stricter gun control policies cause lower gun death rates cannot be addressed by this sort of static analysis. Gun laws obviously are not the only way in which Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming differ from Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. Furthermore, while the latter states have both low suicide and low homicide rates, the former states (with the notable exception of Louisiana) are distinguished mainly by high suicide rates.


****************

The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate, by Kevin D. Williamson, National Review


Take this, for example, from ThinkProgress’s Zack Beauchamp, with whom I had a discussion about the issue on Wednesday evening: “STUDY: States with loose gun laws have higher rates of gun violence.” The claim sounds like an entirely straightforward one. In English, it means that there is more gun violence in states with relatively liberal gun laws.

But that is of course not at all what it means.

In order to reach that conclusion, the authors of the study were obliged to insert a supplementary measure of “gun violence,” that being the “crime-gun export rate.” If a gun legally sold in Indiana ends up someday being used in a crime in Chicago, then that is counted as an incidence of gun violence in Indiana, even though it is no such thing.


This is a fairly nakedly political attempt to manipulate statistics in such a way as to attribute some portion of Chicago’s horrific crime epidemic to peaceable neighboring communities.


And even if we took the “gun-crime export rate” to be a meaningful metric, we would need to consider the fact that it accounts only for those guns sold legally. Of course states that do not have many legal gun sales do not generate a lot of records for “gun-crime exports.” It is probable that lots of guns sold in Illinois end up being used in crimes in Indiana; the difference is, those guns are sold on the black market, and so do not show up in the records. The choice of metrics is just another way to put a thumb on the scale.

Read more at: The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate | National Review

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Can you quote the relevant part of the study that supports registration reduces gun violence and gun accidents?

Can you reason?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Wrong...this is how those studies lie.......

So let’s briefly recap. Gun Murder Rate is not correlated with firearm ownership rate in the United States, on a state by state basis. Firearm Homicide Rate is not correlated with guns per capita globally. It’s not correlated with guns per capita among peaceful countries, nor among violent countries, nor among European countries. So what in the heck is going on in the media, where we are constantly berated with signaling indicating that “more guns = more murder?”
---

One: They’re sneaking suicide in with the data, and then obfuscating that inclusion with rhetoric.​

This is the biggest trick I see in the media,
---

Two: They’re cooking the homicide data.​

First off, they didn’t use actual gun ownership rates. They used fractional suicide-by-gun rates as a proxy for gun ownership. This is a very common technique by gun policy researchers, but the results of that analysis ended up being very different from the ownership data in the Injury Prevention journal in my first graph of the article.
--
Second, they didn’t look only at guns. They looked at a wide array of possible factors that would influence gun homicide, and controlled against them in a complex, multivariate analysis. Generally, I would characterize this as the proper approach. Here is a quote from the study:
----
So let’s start by clearing the air. The two primary correlations they found were not guns, they were income inequality and black population ratio. Does this mean that we can reduce firearm homicide by getting rid of black people?

No.

No it does not.

Don’t even go there.
---
The main difference here, is they’re leaving off data they don’t want you to see. Guns-per-capita varies widely across these data points. Certainly the USA tops the list, but Switzerland at 24 guns per 100 inhabitants has five times more homicides than New Zealand at around 30 guns per 100 inhabitants. Germany has around 30 guns per 100 inhabitants and they’ve got a gun homicide rate that’s a third of Belgium’s, who only have around 17 guns per 100 inhabitants. So Vox has a nice graph here, but they’re intentionally omitting data that would unravel their case.
Further, they’re excluding data points. The USA is #10 in “Human Development Index” according to the current rankings as of March 2018. Norway and Iceland are ahead of us on the HDI rank, but are missing from the graphic. Curiously, both of these countries have over 30 guns per 100 inhabitants as well.
So let’s pause for a moment, purely because this is pretty fun, and look at that HDI list. Norway (31.3 guns per 100 inhabitants), Switzerland (24.5 guns per 100 inhabitants), Germany (30.3 guns per 100 inhabitants), Iceland (30.3 guns per 100 inhabitants) and Canada (30.8 guns per 100 inhabitants) are all higher than the USA on the list, making it six of the top ten HDI ranked countries at over 24 guns per 100 inhabitants.

There are only 15 countries in the world with gun ownership rates this high, and 6 are in the top ten of HDI rank.
-----
Note the subtle rhetorical bait and switch. First Vox initiates a very noticeable, very specific conversation about homicide, while leaving the “ownership” data out, and then they subtly switch to a graph which is dominated by suicide numbers without mentioning the word “suicide” once, to make you think they’re still talking about homicide, when they actually aren’t. Then they follow that graph up immediately with this one:
---


One: This graph has also snuck suicide, accidents, police shootings and such in the back door, without alerting the reader of the bait and switch.


Two: This graph is leaving out a whole bunch of countries, carefully and selectively omitted to funnel the data into a trend.


Three: this graph is leaving out the most important number on the whole thing, which is the R^2 number. What level of correlation we have in this data is absolutely unclear. The only thing that actually draws your eye to believe in a correlation is the trendline itself. If you hide the USA for a moment, and erase the trendline, the data looks like a big uncorrelated mess. If you strip out suicide and accidents, it will become even more uncorrelated. If you add in all the countries they left out, you get an exact replica of my second graph in this article, which shows no correlation.


These are the tricks being played. The only way to even engage in this dialog rationally is to understand how the tricks work and keep an eye out for them. Especially when reading Vox, Mother Jones, Everytown for Gun Safety, and by transitive property, MSNBC, CNN, and the majority of the Blue Church sources, who use Everytown and such as blindly trusted sources when they publish their hastily thrown together articles on gun violence in the wake of one of our seemingly semi-annual yet statistically insignificant school shooting incidents.

Everybody's Lying About the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide

yes, we understand you don't like it when Harvard doctors disagree with you.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Wrong...you were wrong the moment you used any research by David Hemenway.......he is a rabid, anti-gun fanatic......

I understand you don't like him very much. My apologies. He's not the only one but I understand your frustration that someone disagrees with you.

 

[ding]

Can you reason?

I can see that you shoot from the hip and make claims you can’t back up and when called on it try to evade.

There are no studies which suggest gun registration by itself will have any material affect on gun violence and gun accidents because it won’t.

You don’t have a well thought out position. Just admit you want to ban and confiscate guns and be done with it.

 

[Open Bolt]

Sorry but ignorance is NOT something that counts as a "virtue".

No ignorance on my end. That's why you cannot point out any untrue statements in my posts.

Kind of feels like it might be.

You are extremely bad at drawing conclusions about other posters.

Perhaps instead of untrue speculation about other posters, you could devote some of that energy towards supporting your arguments.

That isn't the definition of freedom.

That is incorrect. Free people have the right to keep and bear arms.

As well as their location, governmental systems, languages, cultural behaviors or history.

Wrong again. See above about maybe diverting some of your energy towards supporting your own arguments.

Then again, you are choosing to support an indefensible position. Lack of freedom has absolutely nothing to recommend it.

What do you know about Finland other than their gun laws?

They are next to Russia. They nearly defeated Russia in their last war with them. They think they have a fair shot at defeating Russia in a future conventional war, should one happen. They are right to think this, but Russia's nuclear weapons would be a problem.

During the Cold War they avoided trouble with Russia by blindly supporting Russia in the UN.

If they join NATO and we station ground launched cruise missiles in northern Finland, we'll be able to put one of Russia's big naval bases in jeopardy.

Yet they aren't. They almost NEVER ARE.

So what? Being killed with a gun doesn't make them "more dead" than if they were killed with a different kind of weapon.

Let me know the next time there's a mass killing using a steak knife in an elementary school with a body count nearing 2 dozen.

22 people murdered with a machete:

List of mass stabbing incidents (before 2010) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

20 people murdered with a sickle and machete:

Banjarsari massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

19 people murdered (and 13 severely injured) with knives:

Sagamihara stabbings - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

19 people murdered with knives

List of mass stabbing incidents (2010–2019) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No we just need some extreme restrictions on guns.

Sorry, but we have no intention of abolishing freedom in America.

Numbers and registrations etc. Law enforcement needs to know who has which guns in town.
That'd be a good start.

We are not going to do that either.

yes, we understand you don't like it when Harvard doctors disagree with you.

Appeals to authority are logical fallacies.

I understand you don't like him very much. My apologies. He's not the only one but I understand your frustration that someone disagrees with you.

When progressives disagree with reality, progressives are wrong.

 

[Open Bolt]

Hat off to Matthew Miller, lol

Why do Americans so often think they are the only ones with real freedom?

Answer (1 of 26): Like some people in every country, some Americans do not read widely, think deeply or travel the world. For those people "America" is not even a great big country with hundreds of millions of people, it's their small town, their city, their community. Everyone tends to surround ...

www.quora.com

What Matthew Miller says is completely untrue.

The only extreme ignorance in his post, is his own extreme ignorance.

Parts of the EU (Italy for example) are indeed third-world hellholes.

The UK is still part of Europe even if no longer part of the EU, and they have indeed abolished freedom there.

Iceland as well lacks freedom.

America is free and is going to stay that way.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I stand with the constitution, go fuck yourself fucktard

Precisely why the 2nd needs scrapped to get the real gun nuts off guns.

 

[Open Bolt]

Precisely why the 2nd needs scrapped

Sorry. America chooses to keep our freedom.

 

[Captain Caveman]

What Matthew Miller says is completely untrue.

The only extreme ignorance in his post, is his own extreme ignorance.

Parts of the EU (Italy for example) are indeed third-world hellholes.

The UK is still part of Europe even if no longer part of the EU, and they have indeed abolished freedom there.

Iceland as well lacks freedom.

America is free and is going to stay that way.

By all means hold onto that dream, but you're in the minority.

You need to do a Matthew Miller, go and see the world, get out of your bubble, CNN has done you no favours.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Sorry. America chooses to keep our freedom.

With or without a gun, just like Western countries, you are free. If your brain is stuck in 1776, that's where the wacky ideas come from.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Open Bolt

I live in England and Scotland (two houses), visited Wales, France, Mainland Spain, Menorca, Majorca, Tunisia, Dominican Republic, America, Cyprus, Gran Canaria, and Turkey (and no doubt some others that I can't remember). Never seen any problems on my travels, and once in a blue moon, a major incident hits the news.

What does the power of media do? The first time I went to America, it was big news that tourists were getting shot in Miami, so my brother drove down and around Miami, I stayed up in Orlando.

What's your impression of the countries I've listed?

I have a mate who served in Iraq, he said the people are great, the Muslims over there detest ISIS etc.. because they give Islam a bad name. Some came to work with hang overs, because Muslims drink. He asked them when are they going to go and pray, they said, "Do all Christians go to church?" So the power of the media.

What's your impressions of Muslims, have you met any?

And to think you only need a gun to be free, that ranks as the #1 cranky wacky idea in mankind.

 

[Vagabond63]

What you want them to turn their house into a prison?

So why bother with locks at all? Just let anyone come and go as they please, but shoot the ones you don't like, is that your preferred lifestyle?

You people think that violent crimes don't ever occur and no one ever needs to defend themselves so why should anyone lock their doors?

Utter drivel. Of course violent crimes happen but the easiest and cheapest way to defend yourself at home is to... wait for it... lock your doors! (Oh, and have doors capable of withstanding crowbars and battering rams, still cheaper than guns and ammunition.

 

[Open Bolt]

By all means hold onto that dream,

Reality is not a dream. It is quite real.

but you're in the minority.

Appeals to the crowd are a logical fallacy.

You need to do a Matthew Miller,

No thanks. I prefer facts and reality to ignorance such as that guy spouted.

go and see the world, get out of your bubble, CNN has done you no favours.

I don't watch tabloid crap like CNN. They are certainly much better than the BBC though.

With or without a gun, just like Western countries, you are free.

That is incorrect. Free people have the right to keep and bear arms.

If your brain is stuck in 1776, that's where the wacky ideas come from.

I do not share the opinion that freedom is a wacky idea.

Freedom is not something that belongs only in the past. Freedom is appropriate in the present and future as well.

Freedom did not start in 1776. Freedom has been around for thousands of years.

What's your impression of the countries I've listed?

No opinion on most of them.

Turkey is a third-world hellhole best avoided. It would be really funny if we had our military bomb them. Better yet, let's resume the Crusades and forcibly convert Turkey to Xtianity.

Tunisia is best avoided if you don't want terrorists to saw your head off.

What's your impressions of Muslims,

I'd prefer it if Muslims stopped murdering everyone.

have you met any?

Yes.

I know that you've decided to adopt an indefensible position (there is no way that you will ever convince anyone to abandon freedom), but talking about me doesn't actually support your arguments.

And to think you only need a gun to be free,

I didn't say it was the only requirement. The right to keep and bear arms is only one requirement.

that ranks as the #1 cranky wacky idea in mankind.

I do not share the opinion that freedom is a cranky wacky idea.

 

[Vagabond63]

That is data point is the best example of cherry picked data you will ever find.....that is the only year where U.S. beat Japan in suicide...and you bring it up as some sort of gotcha moment...

I used the latest data merely to illustrate that suicide rates fluctuate over time, your deluded paranoia turned it into a "gotcha moment". As to King of cherry picking, that crown definitly belongs to you.