Gun killings decline 40% after Conn. passed this law

[Vandalshandle]

Gun killings fell by 40 percent after Connecticut passed this law - The Washington Post

And, when Missouri loosened gun restrictions, their gun killings went up.

Who would have thought that restricting gun sales to people who can pass a background check would decrease gun killings?

 

[Steinlight]

There is no evidence that handgun restrictions statistically correlate with a lower gun murder rate, much less the decline in the overall murder rate. Take the UK for example, both the gun murder rate and the overall murder rate increased after the passage of the law.

John Lott s Website So were Piers Morgan and Christiane Amanpour dishonest about crime rates last night

 

[Pogo]

Gun killings fell by 40 percent after Connecticut passed this law - The Washington Post

And, when Missouri loosened gun restrictions, their gun killings went up.

Who would have thought that restricting gun sales to people who can pass a background check would decrease gun killings?

Yeah I heard about this... from the article

How they analyzed the data

Of course, there’s no way to measure the true impact of Connecticut’s “permit-to-purchase” law. We can’t access the alternate universe where Connecticut’s law never existed. But we can compare Connecticut against the 39 states that didn’t have similar legislation at the time.

That’s what the researchers did, using records on gun killings from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In the control states, homicide rates tumbled in the mid ’90s — but in Connecticut, the gun homicide rate fell faster and farther, even after controlling for demographic changes, incomes and policing levels. This is a sign that Connecticut’s gun policy was having an effect.

To arrive at a more precise estimate, the researchers tried to predict what Connecticut would have looked like without its “permit-to-purchase” law. Taking data from statistically similar states, they made a “synthetic” Connecticut — a Frankensteinian creation that is mostly Rhode Island, with some Maryland, and traces of California, Nevada and New Hampshire.

Synthetic Connecticut and real Connecticut look the same before 1996. But they diverge soon after Connecticut’s law kicks in. In the end, there is a 40 percent gap between synthetic Connecticut and real Connecticut — between the expected number of gun-related homicides and the actual number of gun-related homicides.
​

I like the methodology.

Salon story: NRA's Worst Nightmare


Sure is quiet in there for a gun thread. Maybe USMB is having a pool party...

 

[Brain357]

Gun killings fell by 40 percent after Connecticut passed this law - The Washington Post

And, when Missouri loosened gun restrictions, their gun killings went up.

Who would have thought that restricting gun sales to people who can pass a background check would decrease gun killings?

That is an interesting study. If I'm looking at it correctly the overall homicide rate came down also? Looks like it's saying gun homicides came way down and non-gun stayed about that same.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Gun killings fell by 40 percent after Connecticut passed this law - The Washington Post

And, when Missouri loosened gun restrictions, their gun killings went up.

Who would have thought that restricting gun sales to people who can pass a background check would decrease gun killings?

You think gang bangers bought their guns legally to begin with? Or that a purchasing license requirement actually stopped even one?

How about this. Did you know that all categories of violent crime decreased demonstrably nationwide during the same time period?

Your stupid little gun control law had nothing to do with the decrease in crime. Putting fools in prison did.

 

[Steinlight]

Gun killings fell by 40 percent after Connecticut passed this law - The Washington Post

And, when Missouri loosened gun restrictions, their gun killings went up.

Who would have thought that restricting gun sales to people who can pass a background check would decrease gun killings?

That is an interesting study. If I'm looking at it correctly the overall homicide rate came down also? Looks like it's saying gun homicides came way down and non-gun stayed about that same.

Problem is, the results don't hold elsewhere. Gun Murders and Overall Murders went up in the UK after they implemented handgun bans.

Not surprised that the murder rate went down in Connecticut, murder rates have declined nationally since the 90s despite the number of guns increasing over the same period of time.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Gun killings fell by 40 percent after Connecticut passed this law - The Washington Post

And, when Missouri loosened gun restrictions, their gun killings went up.

Who would have thought that restricting gun sales to people who can pass a background check would decrease gun killings?

You think gang bangers bought their guns legally to begin with? Or that a purchasing license requirement actually stopped even one?

How about this. Did you know that all categories of violent crime decreased demonstrably nationwide during the same time period?

Your stupid little gun control law had nothing to do with the decrease in crime. Putting fools in prison did.

Ignored.

 

[Brain357]

There is no evidence that handgun restrictions statistically correlate with a lower gun murder rate, much less the decline in the overall murder rate. Take the UK for example, both the gun murder rate and the overall murder rate increased after the passage of the law.

John Lott s Website So were Piers Morgan and Christiane Amanpour dishonest about crime rates last night

Well this study does appear to be evidence though I am skeptical.

In the control states, homicide rates tumbled in the mid ’90s — but in Connecticut, the gun homicide rate fell faster and farther, even after controlling for demographic changes, incomes and policing levels. This is a sign that Connecticut’s gun policy was having an effect.

 

[Steinlight]

There is no evidence that handgun restrictions statistically correlate with a lower gun murder rate, much less the decline in the overall murder rate. Take the UK for example, both the gun murder rate and the overall murder rate increased after the passage of the law.

John Lott s Website So were Piers Morgan and Christiane Amanpour dishonest about crime rates last night

Well this study does appear to be evidence though I am skeptical.

In the control states, homicide rates tumbled in the mid ’90s — but in Connecticut, the gun homicide rate fell faster and farther, even after controlling for demographic changes, incomes and policing levels. This is a sign that Connecticut’s gun policy was having an effect.

By the way the data was gathered from the Home Office and the House of Commons statistics in the UK, they provide the source for the graphs right below if you want to verify.

I think it is dangerous to extrapolate such a conclusion given such results are not consistent elsewhere. Seems there are other factors at play. I am ambivalent given the data we have to date that gun ownership has an effect on the murder rate either way. I think social factors, like income, education, home environment(whether you had two parents or were raised by a single parent) and race have more of a correlation to murder rates and overall crime rates.

 

[Brain357]

There is no evidence that handgun restrictions statistically correlate with a lower gun murder rate, much less the decline in the overall murder rate. Take the UK for example, both the gun murder rate and the overall murder rate increased after the passage of the law.

John Lott s Website So were Piers Morgan and Christiane Amanpour dishonest about crime rates last night

Well this study does appear to be evidence though I am skeptical.

In the control states, homicide rates tumbled in the mid ’90s — but in Connecticut, the gun homicide rate fell faster and farther, even after controlling for demographic changes, incomes and policing levels. This is a sign that Connecticut’s gun policy was having an effect.

By the way the data was gathered from the Home Office and the House of Commons statistics in the UK, they provide the source for the graphs right below if you want to verify.

I think it is dangerous to extrapolate such a conclusion given such results are not consistent elsewhere. Seems there are other factors at play. I am ambivalent given the data we have to date that gun ownership has an effect on the murder rate either way. I think social factors, like income, education, home environment(whether you had two parents or were raised by a single parent) and race have more of a correlation to murder rates and overall crime rates.

I'm aware of other studies which is why I am rather skeptical. I also think gun ownership doesn't effect crime. I need to look at this study and see what is different. Seems like they did at least try to account for everything.

 

[Brain357]

There is no evidence that handgun restrictions statistically correlate with a lower gun murder rate, much less the decline in the overall murder rate. Take the UK for example, both the gun murder rate and the overall murder rate increased after the passage of the law.

John Lott s Website So were Piers Morgan and Christiane Amanpour dishonest about crime rates last night

Well this study does appear to be evidence though I am skeptical.

In the control states, homicide rates tumbled in the mid ’90s — but in Connecticut, the gun homicide rate fell faster and farther, even after controlling for demographic changes, incomes and policing levels. This is a sign that Connecticut’s gun policy was having an effect.

By the way the data was gathered from the Home Office and the House of Commons statistics in the UK, they provide the source for the graphs right below if you want to verify.

I think it is dangerous to extrapolate such a conclusion given such results are not consistent elsewhere. Seems there are other factors at play. I am ambivalent given the data we have to date that gun ownership has an effect on the murder rate either way. I think social factors, like income, education, home environment(whether you had two parents or were raised by a single parent) and race have more of a correlation to murder rates and overall crime rates.

The Missouri study that compliments this one makes it more interesting:
Study Repealing Missouri s background check law associated with a murder spike - The Washington Post
The 2007 repeal of a Missouri law that required background checks and licenses for all handgun owners appears to be associated with a significant increase in murders there, a new study finds.

What the study found
The law’s repeal was correlated with a 23 percent spike in firearm homicide rates, or an additional 55 to 63 murders annually from 2008 to 2012, according to the study conducted by researchers with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and to be published in the Journal of Urban Health.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

There is no evidence that handgun restrictions statistically correlate with a lower gun murder rate, much less the decline in the overall murder rate. Take the UK for example, both the gun murder rate and the overall murder rate increased after the passage of the law.

John Lott s Website So were Piers Morgan and Christiane Amanpour dishonest about crime rates last night

Well this study does appear to be evidence though I am skeptical.

In the control states, homicide rates tumbled in the mid ’90s — but in Connecticut, the gun homicide rate fell faster and farther, even after controlling for demographic changes, incomes and policing levels. This is a sign that Connecticut’s gun policy was having an effect.

By the way the data was gathered from the Home Office and the House of Commons statistics in the UK, they provide the source for the graphs right below if you want to verify.

I think it is dangerous to extrapolate such a conclusion given such results are not consistent elsewhere. Seems there are other factors at play. I am ambivalent given the data we have to date that gun ownership has an effect on the murder rate either way. I think social factors, like income, education, home environment(whether you had two parents or were raised by a single parent) and race have more of a correlation to murder rates and overall crime rates.

I'm aware of other studies which is why I am rather skeptical. I also think gun ownership doesn't effect crime. I need to look at this study and see what is different. Seems like they did at least try to account for everything.

There's no more effective way to bring down crime than aggressive prosecution. Leftwats love to complain about the incarceration rate, but nobody can deny it works. Dangerous people should be locked up. Gun laws will never do what a 5'x8' does.

 

[Brain357]

There is no evidence that handgun restrictions statistically correlate with a lower gun murder rate, much less the decline in the overall murder rate. Take the UK for example, both the gun murder rate and the overall murder rate increased after the passage of the law.

John Lott s Website So were Piers Morgan and Christiane Amanpour dishonest about crime rates last night

Well this study does appear to be evidence though I am skeptical.

In the control states, homicide rates tumbled in the mid ’90s — but in Connecticut, the gun homicide rate fell faster and farther, even after controlling for demographic changes, incomes and policing levels. This is a sign that Connecticut’s gun policy was having an effect.

By the way the data was gathered from the Home Office and the House of Commons statistics in the UK, they provide the source for the graphs right below if you want to verify.

I think it is dangerous to extrapolate such a conclusion given such results are not consistent elsewhere. Seems there are other factors at play. I am ambivalent given the data we have to date that gun ownership has an effect on the murder rate either way. I think social factors, like income, education, home environment(whether you had two parents or were raised by a single parent) and race have more of a correlation to murder rates and overall crime rates.

I'm aware of other studies which is why I am rather skeptical. I also think gun ownership doesn't effect crime. I need to look at this study and see what is different. Seems like they did at least try to account for everything.

There's no more effective way to bring down crime than aggressive prosecution. Leftwats love to complain about the incarceration rate, but nobody can deny it works. Dangerous people should be locked up. Gun laws will never do what a 5'x8' does.

While I like dangerous criminals being in jail and staying there I wonder why we have the fullest jails in the world, but not the lowest crime rates. It makes me believe there must be some better ways of doing things. I am a strong supporter of the police.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

There is no evidence that handgun restrictions statistically correlate with a lower gun murder rate, much less the decline in the overall murder rate. Take the UK for example, both the gun murder rate and the overall murder rate increased after the passage of the law.

John Lott s Website So were Piers Morgan and Christiane Amanpour dishonest about crime rates last night

Well this study does appear to be evidence though I am skeptical.

In the control states, homicide rates tumbled in the mid ’90s — but in Connecticut, the gun homicide rate fell faster and farther, even after controlling for demographic changes, incomes and policing levels. This is a sign that Connecticut’s gun policy was having an effect.

By the way the data was gathered from the Home Office and the House of Commons statistics in the UK, they provide the source for the graphs right below if you want to verify.

I think it is dangerous to extrapolate such a conclusion given such results are not consistent elsewhere. Seems there are other factors at play. I am ambivalent given the data we have to date that gun ownership has an effect on the murder rate either way. I think social factors, like income, education, home environment(whether you had two parents or were raised by a single parent) and race have more of a correlation to murder rates and overall crime rates.

I'm aware of other studies which is why I am rather skeptical. I also think gun ownership doesn't effect crime. I need to look at this study and see what is different. Seems like they did at least try to account for everything.

There's no more effective way to bring down crime than aggressive prosecution. Leftwats love to complain about the incarceration rate, but nobody can deny it works. Dangerous people should be locked up. Gun laws will never do what a 5'x8' does.

While I like dangerous criminals being in jail and staying there I wonder why we have the fullest jails in the world, but not the lowest crime rates. It makes me believe there must be some better ways of doing things. I am a strong supporter of the police.

We have a 13% black population. Don't be too quick to dismiss the significance of this when comparing us to whiter nations. On the other side, countries in Africa have a much higher crime rate, though it's not noticed because the prosecution rate is lower.

Crime rates are determined by arrests and prosecutions. To give you a picture of what this means, think about how reports of sexual assault in the military have increased and why that's good news. On paper, more assaults are happening, but in reality we know it's just being reported more and that aggressive prosecution will reduce the amount of actual assaults. And that's what we should be going for.

 

[Steinlight]

There is no evidence that handgun restrictions statistically correlate with a lower gun murder rate, much less the decline in the overall murder rate. Take the UK for example, both the gun murder rate and the overall murder rate increased after the passage of the law.

John Lott s Website So were Piers Morgan and Christiane Amanpour dishonest about crime rates last night

Well this study does appear to be evidence though I am skeptical.

In the control states, homicide rates tumbled in the mid ’90s — but in Connecticut, the gun homicide rate fell faster and farther, even after controlling for demographic changes, incomes and policing levels. This is a sign that Connecticut’s gun policy was having an effect.

By the way the data was gathered from the Home Office and the House of Commons statistics in the UK, they provide the source for the graphs right below if you want to verify.

I think it is dangerous to extrapolate such a conclusion given such results are not consistent elsewhere. Seems there are other factors at play. I am ambivalent given the data we have to date that gun ownership has an effect on the murder rate either way. I think social factors, like income, education, home environment(whether you had two parents or were raised by a single parent) and race have more of a correlation to murder rates and overall crime rates.

The Missouri study that compliments this one makes it more interesting:
Study Repealing Missouri s background check law associated with a murder spike - The Washington Post
The 2007 repeal of a Missouri law that required background checks and licenses for all handgun owners appears to be associated with a significant increase in murders there, a new study finds.

What the study found
The law’s repeal was correlated with a 23 percent spike in firearm homicide rates, or an additional 55 to 63 murders annually from 2008 to 2012, according to the study conducted by researchers with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and to be published in the Journal of Urban Health.

Like I said before, I am very ambivalent about looking at individual states and not controlling for other factors, given on a national level, there is no correlation between the rise in gun purchases and a increased gun murder rate. In fact, the gun murder rate and the overall murder rate have declined since the 90s despite an increase in guns. Given the UK data as well, I think we can conclude that bans/restrictions on handguns or guns in general have no correlation to murder rates, gun murder or overall murder rates. IT is basically a statistical wash and no correlation can really be established given conflicting data.

 

[Steinlight]

In the US, state by state, there is no correlation between gun ownership and the murder rate
For example, the District of Columbia has the lowest gun ownership rate(3.7%), but the highest gun murder rate of the 50 states and D.C.(16 per 100,000) Wyoming has the highest gun ownership rate(59.7%), but the 7th lowest gun murder rate at 0.9 per 100,000(behind Iowa, Idaho, and Utah who tie for 6th at 0.8 per 100,000). The gun ownership rates in those three states respectively are 42.9%(16th highest gun ownership rate), 55.3%(6th highest gun ownership rate), and 43.9%(14th highest gun ownership).

This is just to give you idea there is no statistical correlation between gun ownership rate and the gun murder rate on a state by state basis.

Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If you actually look within the countries of the Western world, there is no correlation between the gun ownership rate and the gun murder rate.

For example, if we look at table six in this Harvard Study I will link below, Czech Republic has the highest gun murder rate at .92 per 100,000, but about 27 guns per 100,000 in the population, whereas Finland and Sweden have respective 411 guns person 100,00 in the population and 246.65, and have respective gun murder rates of .87 per 100,000 in Finland and .31 per 100,000 in Sweden.


http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

[Brain357]

In the US, state by state, there is no correlation between gun ownership and the murder rate
For example, the District of Columbia has the lowest gun ownership rate(3.7%), but the highest gun murder rate of the 50 states and D.C.(16 per 100,000) Wyoming has the highest gun ownership rate(59.7%), but the 7th lowest gun murder rate at 0.9 per 100,000(behind Iowa, Idaho, and Utah who tie for 6th at 0.8 per 100,000). The gun ownership rates in those three states respectively are 42.9%(16th highest gun ownership rate), 55.3%(6th highest gun ownership rate), and 43.9%(14th highest gun ownership).

This is just to give you idea there is no statistical correlation between gun ownership rate and the gun murder rate on a state by state basis.

Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If you actually look within the countries of the Western world, there is no correlation between the gun ownership rate and the gun murder rate.

For example, if we look at table six in this Harvard Study I will link below, Czech Republic has the highest gun murder rate at .92 per 100,000, but about 27 guns per 100,000 in the population, whereas Finland and Sweden have respective 411 guns person 100,00 in the population and 246.65, and have respective gun murder rates of .87 per 100,000 in Finland and .31 per 100,000 in Sweden.


http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

The way I read this study it isn't about ownership. It is claiming this law has made it harder for criminals to get guns:
So in the summer of 1994, lawmakers hustled through a gun control bill in a special session. They hoped to curb shootings by requiring people to get a purchasing license before buying a handgun. The state would issue these permits to people who passed a background check and a gun safety training course.

At the time, private citizens could freely buy and sell guns secondhand, even to those with criminal records. Connecticut’s law sought to regulate that market. Even private handgun sales would have to be reported to the state, and buyers would need to have a permit.

 

[Brain357]

In the US, state by state, there is no correlation between gun ownership and the murder rate
For example, the District of Columbia has the lowest gun ownership rate(3.7%), but the highest gun murder rate of the 50 states and D.C.(16 per 100,000) Wyoming has the highest gun ownership rate(59.7%), but the 7th lowest gun murder rate at 0.9 per 100,000(behind Iowa, Idaho, and Utah who tie for 6th at 0.8 per 100,000). The gun ownership rates in those three states respectively are 42.9%(16th highest gun ownership rate), 55.3%(6th highest gun ownership rate), and 43.9%(14th highest gun ownership).

This is just to give you idea there is no statistical correlation between gun ownership rate and the gun murder rate on a state by state basis.

Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If you actually look within the countries of the Western world, there is no correlation between the gun ownership rate and the gun murder rate.

For example, if we look at table six in this Harvard Study I will link below, Czech Republic has the highest gun murder rate at .92 per 100,000, but about 27 guns per 100,000 in the population, whereas Finland and Sweden have respective 411 guns person 100,00 in the population and 246.65, and have respective gun murder rates of .87 per 100,000 in Finland and .31 per 100,000 in Sweden.


http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

The way I read this study it isn't about ownership. It is claiming this law has made it harder for criminals to get guns:
So in the summer of 1994, lawmakers hustled through a gun control bill in a special session. They hoped to curb shootings by requiring people to get a purchasing license before buying a handgun. The state would issue these permits to people who passed a background check and a gun safety training course.

At the time, private citizens could freely buy and sell guns secondhand, even to those with criminal records. Connecticut’s law sought to regulate that market. Even private handgun sales would have to be reported to the state, and buyers would need to have a permit.

How do permit-to-purchase laws work?

Federal law requires gun dealers to run background checks before selling to anyone. But it doesn’t require background checks for gun sales between private citizens. This is called the “private sale” or “gun show” loophole.

In other words, most states will let you buy a gun off a stranger on Craigslist, no background check needed.

Permit-to-purchase laws, which are on the books in 10 states, pose one way to tame the secondhand market. These laws require people to get pre-cleared by state or local authorities, who issue them a permit allowing them to buy a gun. Connecticut, for instance, requires permit applicants to pass a background check as well as a gun safety training course.

Permit-to-purchase laws make it a crime for anyone to sell or give a gun to someone without a permit. They discourage people from selling guns to criminals, who wouldn’t clear the background check for a permit.

Critics of these laws say they won’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals, because, well, criminals won’t follow the law.

That’s flawed thinking, says Daniel Webster, one of the authors on the study and director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.

Connecticut’s gun permit law made it harder for guns to enter the black market. Lower supply means higher prices. A motivated crook could still get her hands on a gun, but it would take more time and resources. Perhaps she would have to travel to a different state, or ask a friend with a clean record to illegally obtain a gun for her.

“People assume incorrectly that criminals will do anything and everything in terms of cost and risk to get their hands on a gun,” he said. “But that simply is not what the data tells us.” Connecticut’s law didn’t stop criminals from acquiring guns, but it deterred enough of them that the gun homicide rate dropped.

 

[Steinlight]

In the US, state by state, there is no correlation between gun ownership and the murder rate
For example, the District of Columbia has the lowest gun ownership rate(3.7%), but the highest gun murder rate of the 50 states and D.C.(16 per 100,000) Wyoming has the highest gun ownership rate(59.7%), but the 7th lowest gun murder rate at 0.9 per 100,000(behind Iowa, Idaho, and Utah who tie for 6th at 0.8 per 100,000). The gun ownership rates in those three states respectively are 42.9%(16th highest gun ownership rate), 55.3%(6th highest gun ownership rate), and 43.9%(14th highest gun ownership).

This is just to give you idea there is no statistical correlation between gun ownership rate and the gun murder rate on a state by state basis.

Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If you actually look within the countries of the Western world, there is no correlation between the gun ownership rate and the gun murder rate.

For example, if we look at table six in this Harvard Study I will link below, Czech Republic has the highest gun murder rate at .92 per 100,000, but about 27 guns per 100,000 in the population, whereas Finland and Sweden have respective 411 guns person 100,00 in the population and 246.65, and have respective gun murder rates of .87 per 100,000 in Finland and .31 per 100,000 in Sweden.


http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

The way I read this study it isn't about ownership. It is claiming this law has made it harder for criminals to get guns:
So in the summer of 1994, lawmakers hustled through a gun control bill in a special session. They hoped to curb shootings by requiring people to get a purchasing license before buying a handgun. The state would issue these permits to people who passed a background check and a gun safety training course.

At the time, private citizens could freely buy and sell guns secondhand, even to those with criminal records. Connecticut’s law sought to regulate that market. Even private handgun sales would have to be reported to the state, and buyers would need to have a permit.

At that point, your going in circles. Because the point of these regulations is to reduce the number of guns. Reducing the number of guns, or having less guns in your society in no way correlates to lower murder rates.

You cite example such as Connecticut and Missouri as examples of gun control being coinciding with a lower murder rate, I can cite the UK data and data from Washington D.C where gun controls coincided with spike in the murder rate. The reality is, the statistical correlation isn't there for gun control advocates to hang their hats on.

 

[Brain357]

In the US, state by state, there is no correlation between gun ownership and the murder rate
For example, the District of Columbia has the lowest gun ownership rate(3.7%), but the highest gun murder rate of the 50 states and D.C.(16 per 100,000) Wyoming has the highest gun ownership rate(59.7%), but the 7th lowest gun murder rate at 0.9 per 100,000(behind Iowa, Idaho, and Utah who tie for 6th at 0.8 per 100,000). The gun ownership rates in those three states respectively are 42.9%(16th highest gun ownership rate), 55.3%(6th highest gun ownership rate), and 43.9%(14th highest gun ownership).

This is just to give you idea there is no statistical correlation between gun ownership rate and the gun murder rate on a state by state basis.

Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If you actually look within the countries of the Western world, there is no correlation between the gun ownership rate and the gun murder rate.

For example, if we look at table six in this Harvard Study I will link below, Czech Republic has the highest gun murder rate at .92 per 100,000, but about 27 guns per 100,000 in the population, whereas Finland and Sweden have respective 411 guns person 100,00 in the population and 246.65, and have respective gun murder rates of .87 per 100,000 in Finland and .31 per 100,000 in Sweden.


http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

The way I read this study it isn't about ownership. It is claiming this law has made it harder for criminals to get guns:
So in the summer of 1994, lawmakers hustled through a gun control bill in a special session. They hoped to curb shootings by requiring people to get a purchasing license before buying a handgun. The state would issue these permits to people who passed a background check and a gun safety training course.

At the time, private citizens could freely buy and sell guns secondhand, even to those with criminal records. Connecticut’s law sought to regulate that market. Even private handgun sales would have to be reported to the state, and buyers would need to have a permit.

At that point, your going in circles. Because the point of these regulations is to reduce the number of guns. Reducing the number of guns, or having less guns in your society in no way correlates to lower murder rates.

You cite example such as Connecticut and Missouri as examples of gun control being coinciding with a lower murder rate, I can cite the UK data and data from Washington D.C where gun controls coincided with spike in the murder rate. The reality is, the statistical correlation isn't there for gun control advocates to hang their hats on.

I'm familiar with those studies. I don't think permit to purchase laws are the same as trying to reduce gun ownership. I'm not willing to say at this point these new studies trump other studies, but I'm not going to brush them off either. They are very interesting.