More Guns, More Murder

[HenryBHough]

When all cancers are cured there'll be massive fund-raising campaigns to deal with America's overpopulation crisis.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The largest study of gun violence in the United States, released Thursday afternoon, confirms a point that should be obvious: widespread American gun ownership is fueling America’s gun violence epidemic.

The study, by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University and two coauthors, has been peer-reviewed and is forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health. Siegel and his colleagues compiled data on firearm homicides from all 50 states from 1981-2010, the longest stretch of time ever studied in this fashion, and set about seeing whether they could find any relationship between changes in gun ownership and murder using guns over time.

Since we know that violent crime rates overall declined during that period of time, the authors used something called “fixed effect regression” to account for any national trend other than changes in gun ownership. They also employed the largest-ever number of statistical controls for other variables in this kind of gun study: “age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted nonfirearm homicide rate, incarceration rate,and suicide rate” were all accounted for.

No good data on national rates of gun ownership exist (partly because of the NRA’s stranglehold on Congress), so the authors used the percentage of suicides that involve a firearm (FS/S) as a proxy. The theory, backed up by a wealth of data, is that the more guns there are any in any one place, the higher the percentage of people who commit suicide with guns as opposed to other mechanisms will be.

With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.

To put this in perspective, take the state of Mississippi. “All other factors being equal,” the authors write, “our model would predict that if the FS/S in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower.” Since 475 people were murdered with a gun in Mississippi in 2010, that drop in gun ownership would translate to 80 lives saved in that year alone.

Of course, the authors don’t find that rates of gun ownership explain all of America’s gun violence epidemic: race, economic inequality and generally violent areas all contribute to an area’s propensity for gun deaths, suggesting that broader social inequality, not gun ownership alone, contributes to the gun violence epidemic. Nevertheless, the fact that gun ownership mattered even when race and poverty were accounted for suggests that we can’t avoid talking about America’s fascination with guns when debating what to do about the roughly 11,000 Americans who are yearly murdered by gunfire.

Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder | ThinkProgress

I read until 'epidemic', since that's a blatant lie, I didn't bother with the rest of it, knowing it's nothing but lies.

 

[Two Thumbs]

got to love the anti-freedom types.

not a single original thought occurs from them

 

[kwc57]

I only own a gun because a full cop doesn't fit in my nightstand.

I don't call cops.

You really should. It's their job to write an after incident report about how you protected your home and family from someone intent on doing you harm. They will also probably want to compliment you on the nice pattern you shot into the criminal's chest as well as your choice of firearm and ammo.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The largest study of gun violence in the United States, released Thursday afternoon, confirms a point that should be obvious: widespread American gun ownership is fueling America’s gun violence epidemic.

The study, by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University and two coauthors, has been peer-reviewed and is forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health. Siegel and his colleagues compiled data on firearm homicides from all 50 states from 1981-2010, the longest stretch of time ever studied in this fashion, and set about seeing whether they could find any relationship between changes in gun ownership and murder using guns over time.

Since we know that violent crime rates overall declined during that period of time, the authors used something called “fixed effect regression” to account for any national trend other than changes in gun ownership. They also employed the largest-ever number of statistical controls for other variables in this kind of gun study: “age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted nonfirearm homicide rate, incarceration rate,and suicide rate” were all accounted for.

No good data on national rates of gun ownership exist (partly because of the NRA’s stranglehold on Congress), so the authors used the percentage of suicides that involve a firearm (FS/S) as a proxy. The theory, backed up by a wealth of data, is that the more guns there are any in any one place, the higher the percentage of people who commit suicide with guns as opposed to other mechanisms will be.

With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.

To put this in perspective, take the state of Mississippi. “All other factors being equal,” the authors write, “our model would predict that if the FS/S in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower.” Since 475 people were murdered with a gun in Mississippi in 2010, that drop in gun ownership would translate to 80 lives saved in that year alone.

Of course, the authors don’t find that rates of gun ownership explain all of America’s gun violence epidemic: race, economic inequality and generally violent areas all contribute to an area’s propensity for gun deaths, suggesting that broader social inequality, not gun ownership alone, contributes to the gun violence epidemic. Nevertheless, the fact that gun ownership mattered even when race and poverty were accounted for suggests that we can’t avoid talking about America’s fascination with guns when debating what to do about the roughly 11,000 Americans who are yearly murdered by gunfire.

Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder | ThinkProgress

I read until 'epidemic', since that's a blatant lie, I didn't bother with the rest of it, knowing it's nothing but lies.

You got further than I did. The title was all I could take, to realize it was a lie.

 

[editec]

If ya love guns and gun ownership, if you believe that the easy access to guns is a good thing?

Move to FLORIDA.

Everybody seems not only to own guns but also has the right to carry there.

Here's a state-by-state- thumbnail of crime stats.

Basically when I look at this I don't see a whole lot of support that guns make us safe or unsafe.

What I see is correlations with other factors like poverty urban v rural and (gotta admit it) race numbers effecting crime.

Crime Rate by State, 2011 | Infoplease.com

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If ya love guns and gun ownership, if you believe that the easy access to guns is a good thing?

Move to FLORIDA.

Everybody seems not only to own guns but also has the right to carry there.

Here's a state-by-state- thumbnail of crime stats.

Basically when I look at this I don't see a whole lot of support that guns make us safe or unsafe.

What I see is correlations with other factors like poverty urban v rural and (gotta admit it) race numbers effecting crime.

Crime Rate by State, 2011 | Infoplease.com

North Carolina is an open carry state
Now what?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If ya love guns and gun ownership, if you believe that the easy access to guns is a good thing?

Move to FLORIDA.

Everybody seems not only to own guns but also has the right to carry there.

Here's a state-by-state- thumbnail of crime stats.

Basically when I look at this I don't see a whole lot of support that guns make us safe or unsafe.

What I see is correlations with other factors like poverty urban v rural and (gotta admit it) race numbers effecting crime.

Crime Rate by State, 2011 | Infoplease.com

What do guns have to do with these stats? You do know that crime even violent crimes happens with no guns involved.

I'm guessing this is just more dishonesty coming from yet another idiot libturd.

 

[9thIDdoc]

If ya love guns and gun ownership, if you believe that the easy access to guns is a good thing?

Move to FLORIDA.

Everybody seems not only to own guns but also has the right to carry there.

Here's a state-by-state- thumbnail of crime stats.

Basically when I look at this I don't see a whole lot of support that guns make us safe or unsafe.

What I see is correlations with other factors like poverty urban v rural and (gotta admit it) race numbers effecting crime.

Crime Rate by State, 2011 | Infoplease.com

Did you happen to notice that by your stats DC with it's very strict gun laws has about 2 to 5 times the violent crime rate of the listed states (including Fla.) according to the FBI?

 

[Spoonman]

considering the number of guns grows steadily every year and the number of gun homicides drops steadily every year, i'd say the OP is more liberal spin to push a failed agenda

 

[laughinReaper]

The largest study of gun violence in the United States, released Thursday afternoon, confirms a point that should be obvious: widespread American gun ownership is fueling America’s gun violence epidemic.

The study, by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University and two coauthors, has been peer-reviewed and is forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health. Siegel and his colleagues compiled data on firearm homicides from all 50 states from 1981-2010, the longest stretch of time ever studied in this fashion, and set about seeing whether they could find any relationship between changes in gun ownership and murder using guns over time.

Since we know that violent crime rates overall declined during that period of time, the authors used something called “fixed effect regression” to account for any national trend other than changes in gun ownership. They also employed the largest-ever number of statistical controls for other variables in this kind of gun study: “age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted nonfirearm homicide rate, incarceration rate,and suicide rate” were all accounted for.

No good data on national rates of gun ownership exist (partly because of the NRA’s stranglehold on Congress), so the authors used the percentage of suicides that involve a firearm (FS/S) as a proxy. The theory, backed up by a wealth of data, is that the more guns there are any in any one place, the higher the percentage of people who commit suicide with guns as opposed to other mechanisms will be.

With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.

To put this in perspective, take the state of Mississippi. “All other factors being equal,” the authors write, “our model would predict that if the FS/S in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower.” Since 475 people were murdered with a gun in Mississippi in 2010, that drop in gun ownership would translate to 80 lives saved in that year alone.

Of course, the authors don’t find that rates of gun ownership explain all of America’s gun violence epidemic: race, economic inequality and generally violent areas all contribute to an area’s propensity for gun deaths, suggesting that broader social inequality, not gun ownership alone, contributes to the gun violence epidemic. Nevertheless, the fact that gun ownership mattered even when race and poverty were accounted for suggests that we can’t avoid talking about America’s fascination with guns when debating what to do about the roughly 11,000 Americans who are yearly murdered by gunfire.

Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder | ThinkProgress

and before guns it would have been swords,axes and knives. People are gonna kill no matter what. If they want to do a meaningful study why don't they address why people feel the value of life is so cheap that they should take it over stupid shit.

 

[HenryBHough]

What value a life when government pays to have babies murdered?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The largest study of gun violence in the United States, released Thursday afternoon, confirms a point that should be obvious: widespread American gun ownership is fueling America’s gun violence epidemic.

The study, by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University and two coauthors, has been peer-reviewed and is forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health. Siegel and his colleagues compiled data on firearm homicides from all 50 states from 1981-2010, the longest stretch of time ever studied in this fashion, and set about seeing whether they could find any relationship between changes in gun ownership and murder using guns over time.

Since we know that violent crime rates overall declined during that period of time, the authors used something called “fixed effect regression” to account for any national trend other than changes in gun ownership. They also employed the largest-ever number of statistical controls for other variables in this kind of gun study: “age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted nonfirearm homicide rate, incarceration rate,and suicide rate” were all accounted for.

No good data on national rates of gun ownership exist (partly because of the NRA’s stranglehold on Congress), so the authors used the percentage of suicides that involve a firearm (FS/S) as a proxy. The theory, backed up by a wealth of data, is that the more guns there are any in any one place, the higher the percentage of people who commit suicide with guns as opposed to other mechanisms will be.

With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.

To put this in perspective, take the state of Mississippi. “All other factors being equal,” the authors write, “our model would predict that if the FS/S in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower.” Since 475 people were murdered with a gun in Mississippi in 2010, that drop in gun ownership would translate to 80 lives saved in that year alone.

Of course, the authors don’t find that rates of gun ownership explain all of America’s gun violence epidemic: race, economic inequality and generally violent areas all contribute to an area’s propensity for gun deaths, suggesting that broader social inequality, not gun ownership alone, contributes to the gun violence epidemic. Nevertheless, the fact that gun ownership mattered even when race and poverty were accounted for suggests that we can’t avoid talking about America’s fascination with guns when debating what to do about the roughly 11,000 Americans who are yearly murdered by gunfire.

Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder | ThinkProgress

Absolute nonsense. An irrational, politically motivated 'theory' which has been disproven time and again.

But for the sake of argument, IF it were true, that would have no bearing on the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. It would however be an EXCELLENT reason to train harder.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What value a life when government pays to have babies murdered?

You're speaking of the 55 million, of the most innocent of human life which have been murdered in the US, by people who were solely responsible for them, having conceived them through their own wanton and willful behavior?

 

[boedicca]

The OP clearly lives in a Fact Free Alternate Reality.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yeah.

If one wants to see what causes crime of every variety, one need look no further than cities and states governed by socialist.

FACT: In terms of VIOLENT CRIME, simply remove from the equation, population centers governed by the Ideological Left for more than one generation and the US is the safest place on earth, with no close second.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hmmm. Did the study leave out the POLICE and MILITARY
who take Constitutional oaths and defense training to invoke authority
and rules of engagement for the use of firearms?

Maybe THAT'S the missing factor?

What if you compared the gun use of people/populations/districts
TRAINING under police/military standards of defense
with the gun use of untrained civilians.

What is the difference in violations and abuses between those populations?

NOTE: A graduate student at UH is conducting a study on gun policy in
high-crime districts, providing guns and training through his nonprofit
to local citizens to measure the impact on crime statistics. See
http://www.armedcitizenproject.org
I agree with this approach and would like to expand on it
to promote civics education and conflict resolution as a requirement for citizenship.
By allowing districts to opt in to Constitutional standards of conduct as part of
the civic associations and neighborhood ordinances, how much would the
crime rate drop, the cost of policing prosecution and prisons, and thus
lower the tax rate or allow more resources to be invested in education and health care to cut costs to the public of govt.

The largest study of gun violence in the United States, released Thursday afternoon, confirms a point that should be obvious: widespread American gun ownership is fueling America’s gun violence epidemic.

The study, by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University and two coauthors, has been peer-reviewed and is forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health. Siegel and his colleagues compiled data on firearm homicides from all 50 states from 1981-2010, the longest stretch of time ever studied in this fashion, and set about seeing whether they could find any relationship between changes in gun ownership and murder using guns over time.

Since we know that violent crime rates overall declined during that period of time, the authors used something called “fixed effect regression” to account for any national trend other than changes in gun ownership. They also employed the largest-ever number of statistical controls for other variables in this kind of gun study: “age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted nonfirearm homicide rate, incarceration rate,and suicide rate” were all accounted for.

No good data on national rates of gun ownership exist (partly because of the NRA’s stranglehold on Congress), so the authors used the percentage of suicides that involve a firearm (FS/S) as a proxy. The theory, backed up by a wealth of data, is that the more guns there are any in any one place, the higher the percentage of people who commit suicide with guns as opposed to other mechanisms will be.

With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.

To put this in perspective, take the state of Mississippi. “All other factors being equal,” the authors write, “our model would predict that if the FS/S in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower.” Since 475 people were murdered with a gun in Mississippi in 2010, that drop in gun ownership would translate to 80 lives saved in that year alone.

Of course, the authors don’t find that rates of gun ownership explain all of America’s gun violence epidemic: race, economic inequality and generally violent areas all contribute to an area’s propensity for gun deaths, suggesting that broader social inequality, not gun ownership alone, contributes to the gun violence epidemic. Nevertheless, the fact that gun ownership mattered even when race and poverty were accounted for suggests that we can’t avoid talking about America’s fascination with guns when debating what to do about the roughly 11,000 Americans who are yearly murdered by gunfire.

Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder | ThinkProgress

It does no such thing.

Yesterday the Annals of Internal Medicine published a meta-analysis of 15 studies that aimed to measure the relationship between gun ownership and the risk of suicide or homicide. Over all, University of California at San Francisco epidemiologist Andrew Anglemyer and his two co-authors found, people with access to guns were about three times as likely to kill themselves and about twice as likely to be killed as people without such access. The Daily Beast's Brandy Zadrozny says Anglemyer et al.'s study "has seemingly put an end to the debate" over whether owning a gun makes people more or less safe, "at least in terms of suicide and homicide." Not quite. Like the underlying studies, almost all of which started with suicide or homicide cases and matched them to "controls," the meta-analysis cannot tell us whether the observed relationships are causal and, if so, in which direction the causation runs. "Whether the presence of a firearm among case patients is the result of environmental characteristics or living conditions is unclear," the authors observe. "For example, some persons may purchase a firearm for protection because of neighborhood crime." If so, that same high crime rate would increase their chances of being killed, whether or not they owned guns. Similarly, a woman might buy a gun to protect herself against an abusive boyfriend or husband. If he ends up killing her, that does not necessarily mean buying the gun made her less safe. Rather, it was her vulnerability to violence that motivated her to buy the gun.
That scenario seems especially relevant given that Anglemyer and his colleagues found the risk of homicide victimization associated with owning a gun was much higher for women than for men. Among men, the additional risk was just 29 percent, while for women it was 184 percent. Suicide risk, by contrast, was somewhat higher for men than for women, for whom the additional risk associated with access to a gun was not statistically significant.

Does the Latest Study Finally Show That Owning a Gun Makes You Less Safe? - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Now that I have proved I can throw around quotes lets find out who can actually think.

Defend the study on the basis that guns in violent neighborhoods attract criminals.

 

[emilynghiem]

What value a life when government pays to have babies murdered?

You're speaking of the 55 million, of the most innocent of human life which have been murdered in the US, by people who were solely responsible for them, having conceived them through their own wanton and willful behavior?

This does not address the MEN who also agreed to participate in sex without responsibility for the pregnancy, or costs of children, or the coercion put on women economically or sexually.

Until you address the MALE factor in the unwanted pregnancy and abortion debates, the legislation is always biased towards burdening the women unequally and is thus contested.

For example, what if laws were passed holding MEN EQUALLY responsible for a lesser degree of statutory rape or relationship abuse, for any act of sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy, children or abortion? What if the burden were put on MEN instead of women?

How would that change the equation and focus on prevention the abuse of sex without commitment or ability to pay for children if conceived?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What value a life when government pays to have babies murdered?

You're speaking of the 55 million, of the most innocent of human life which have been murdered in the US, by people who were solely responsible for them, having conceived them through their own wanton and willful behavior?

This does not address the MEN who also agreed to participate in sex without responsibility for the pregnancy, or costs of children, or the coercion put on women economically or sexually.

Until you address the MALE factor in the unwanted pregnancy and abortion debates, the legislation is always biased towards burdening the women unequally and is thus contested.

For example, what if laws were passed holding MEN EQUALLY responsible for a lesser degree of statutory rape or relationship abuse, for any act of sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy, children or abortion? What if the burden were put on MEN instead of women?

How would that change the equation and focus on prevention the abuse of sex without commitment or ability to pay for children if conceived?

Oh, I completely agree. What's more. is that I could not agree more.

But, with respect, women are wholly responsible for their bodies.

We believe this to the extent that if a man forces himself inside a woman, we will kill him for it. We So believe in the sanctity of the female's right to choose, that we will literally strip a man of all of his rights, including that to his life, where he fails to bear his responsibility to respect the women's rights and her means to bear her responsibilities, sustaining her own rights.

But nature has designed the species as it is and men are biologically driven to enter the female and that they will do, by hook or crook. And it falls to the female to defend herself, her future and her sanity to reject all comers, until such time that she finds a true and dependable 'mate', with whom she can 'join' with and procreate in a sound and viable means.

Please understand that I am in no way attempting to set aside the responsibility of the male. But their responsibility is PURELY conceptual, while the female's responsibility is tangible, real and absolutely unavoidable.

I hope you understand my position and do not take it in any way that is disrespectful to or otherwise demeaning to the fairer sex.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What value a life when government pays to have babies murdered?

You're speaking of the 55 million, of the most innocent of human life which have been murdered in the US, by people who were solely responsible for them, having conceived them through their own wanton and willful behavior?

This does not address the MEN who also agreed to participate in sex without responsibility for the pregnancy, or costs of children, or the coercion put on women economically or sexually.

Until you address the MALE factor in the unwanted pregnancy and abortion debates, the legislation is always biased towards burdening the women unequally and is thus contested.

For example, what if laws were passed holding MEN EQUALLY responsible for a lesser degree of statutory rape or relationship abuse, for any act of sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy, children or abortion? What if the burden were put on MEN instead of women?

How would that change the equation and focus on prevention the abuse of sex without commitment or ability to pay for children if conceived?

I agree men should be responsible for their role in getting a woman pregnant. But they also should be included in determining whether or not a woman gets an abortion.